date:20051215




"I don't have to accept their public teachings when 
they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' (implicit within 
this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' 
to see what such as Calvin  Barth could not see) IMO, what is further 
implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To reject a person's 
public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them personally' so, I do 
separate teaching/doing/ the Word.

When I say of Lance 'YOU ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP 
OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; 
not to his person. (Is this the case, Judy)

May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate with 
respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ Judy's 
_expression_ when speaking of her word for word?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 14, 2005 17:11
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double 
  Standard
  
  I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat 
  nothing, about them personally. I don't have
  to accept their public teachings when they are not in 
  line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
  To say that I personally denigrate these men is a 
  LIE
  
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't you 
research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  You are reading with the help of the powers of 
  darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
  unfounded and evil accusation. 
  
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
No accusation here, Judy. This is a simple 
statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating persons both on 
and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so doing. 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  Oh, here is one I missed,
  1. Yes most of the time I find your writings 
  to be unclear rather than plain Lance
  2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those 
  whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word. 
  
  3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance 
  because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you 
  are
   doing right 
  here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... 
  Oh well! What's new
  
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am). 
Let me take another run at it. On 
those occasions in which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY 
APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, do you not 
implicitly or explictly indicate that the one(s) with whom you are 
speaking do not? Would you have 
genuine difficulty if recalling many such instances over the last 6 
months?

What then, am I attempting to say? YOU 
DO THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT 
WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME 
FASHION. 

Do you understand?

Do you agree with this assessment?

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 14, 2005 
  08:13
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT 
  Double Standard
  
  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 noteverything I 
  write is the Word of Godbecause 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 
  ofattitudeleads??
  
  
  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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross




HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to 
earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS 
STATEMENT?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 14, 2005 19:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
  
  Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and 
  walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our 
  salvation . . .
  
  Huh?
  
-Original Message-From: 
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgDate: 
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:16 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
CrossWell stated, Dean. I liked this part 
best.TerryDean 
Moore wrote: 

  
  
  cd: Case and point without the cross there 
  could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure 
  all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added 
  to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But 
  you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all 
  that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you 
  gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came 
  down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the 
  cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I 
  say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We 
  bring you tidings of Great 
joy"

RE: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes




cd: I'm getting the message that I should get tougher on these sinners and false lusting prophets:-)




- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 12:50:19 PM 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


Youll have to ask the LordHe hasnt convicted me of anything on my last 20 posts as yet. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:22 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 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, 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)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes




cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-)




- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:47:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

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 ofLance'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 heartwhich 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 seeKevin 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 orme.

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 orme.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..




You are doing with my words what your mentors do with 
God's Word Lance - which is interjecting your own reasonings.
As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own issues 
with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however is in my 
face at church and heis something else. Here is 
a man who apparently taught and his disciples today(whoappear 
intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead othersto pass on the 
image of a Heavenly Father- the one Jesus loved and communed with daily - 
who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and then punishes His Creation for 
doingwhat He decrees. Along the same lines he decrees some saved and 
some lost so the responsibility there is all on Him.

Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) to 
take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening in our 
day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to these men's 
words than the Words of Jesus Himself.

As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put 
your own spin on that. I never said anything about your 
teaching.
Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all of 
your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the help of 
the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, interject different 
meanings,and keep confusion going. I said nothing at all about your 
teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's at least deal with the 
truth of the matter Lance.



On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "I don't have to accept their public teachings 
  when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me (Judy 
  Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin  Barth 
  could not see) 
  
  IMO, what is further implicit 
  in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To reject a person's 
  public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them personally' so, I do 
  separate teaching/doing/ the Word.
  
  When I say of Lance 'YOU ARE 
  TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I refer, of 
  course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this the case, 
  Judy)
  
  May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate with 
  respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ Judy's 
  _expression_ when speaking of her word for word?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat 
nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are not 
in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is a 
LIE

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't 
  you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You are reading with the help of the powers of 
darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
unfounded and evil accusation. 

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  No accusation here, Judy. This is a 
  simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating 
  persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so 
  doing. 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your 
writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure 
those whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word. 

3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance 
because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what 
you are
 doing right 
here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing 
... Oh well! What's new

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often 
  am). Let me take another run at it. On those occasions in which you indicate that you've 
  CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, 
  do you not implicitly or explictly indicate that the one(s) with 
  whom you are speaking do not? Would you have genuine difficulty if recalling many such 
  instances over the last 6 months?
  
  What then, am I attempting to say? 
  YOU DO THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on 
  occasion(s) THAT WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT 
  IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION. 
  
  Do you understand?

Re: [TruthTalk] TRUE CHRISTIANS SAY NO TO SATAN BEFORE IT MANIFESTS INTO SIN ...




cd: Lance Lobsmany right over his own head:-)




- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/13/2005 7:08:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TRUE CHRISTIANS SAY NO TO SATAN BEFORE IT MANIFESTS INTO SIN ...

  .
  . .
Lance Lobs one right over your head . .[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:01:00 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [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.

Good thought, Lance. But what about Dean? Maybe we better check and see if his mother's name was Mary, huh? 


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

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes




Web Dfn:'Fancy':illusion:something many people believe 
that is false. I ask of those with whom others has disagreed, either mildly or 
vehemently, does that one believe your theology to have been 'fancy'? I WOULD 
SAY SO, YES! 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 15, 2005 06:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and 
  Motes
  
  
  cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-)
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:47:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and 
Motes

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 ofLance'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 heartwhich 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes









- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:03:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

I've yet to seeKevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personallyDAVEH: Does calling another TTer a LIAR qualify as an ad-hom attack, Judy?
cd: Not if that person is a liar-which is my opinion:-) That's why it's call Truth Talking. Am I only allowed to say nice things about you -that would make me a liar:-) wink,wink :-)Judy Taylor wrote: 


Now if you had said Joseph Smith  Brigham Young your observation may have carried some weight
Lance. However, I've yet to seeKevin 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 orme.

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 orme.

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?TerryJudy Taylor wrote: 


Self rejection happenswhen children are either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. When
one israised 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 assinful 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)



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)-- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Offence given offence taken - MORMONS??









- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:04:05 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Offence given  offence taken - MORMONS??

DAVEH: I have a pretty thick skin, Lance. I don't recall anything specifically said by the below mentioned TTers that offended me. I suspect most LDS folks would take offense though, as I'm not a very sensitive guy.as TTers well know.
cd: Then why all the complaining to Perry?Lance Muir wrote: 




Perry, Dean, Kevin et al certainly GIVE offence vis a vis Mormonism. Do you, the Mormon contingent on TT, take offence at what's said by them?-- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..

I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to the
aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder treatmen
below than on other occasions.

- Original Message -

From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 15, 2005 06:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I
don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them
personally.."

You are doing with my words what your mentors do with
God's Word Lance - which is interjecting your own reasonings.
As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own
issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however is
in my face at church and heis something else.
Here is a man who apparently taught and his disciples
today(whoappear intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead
othersto pass on the image of a Heavenly Father- the one Jesus
loved and communed with daily - who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and
then punishes His Creation for doingwhat He decrees. Along the
same lines he decrees some saved and some lost so the responsibility there is
all on Him.

Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) to
take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening in our
day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to these men's
words than the Words of Jesus Himself.

As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put
your own spin on that. I never said anything about your
teaching.
Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all of
your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the help
of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, interject
different meanings,and keep confusion going. I said nothing at all about
your teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's at least deal
with the truth of the matter Lance.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

"I don't have to accept their public teachings
when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me (Judy
Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin Barth
could not see)

IMO, what is further
implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To reject
a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them personally'
so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.

When I say of Lance 'YOU
ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I
refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this the
case, Judy)

May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate
with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ
Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for
word?

From: Judy Taylor

I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat
nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are
not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is a
LIE

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't
you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et
al?

From: Judy
Taylor

You are reading with the help of the powers
of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
unfounded and evil accusation.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

No accusation here, Judy. This is a
simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating
persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so
doing.

From: Judy Taylor

Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your
writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure
those whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word.

3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance
because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what
you are
doing right
here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing
... Oh well! What's new

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often
am). Let me take another run at it. On those occasions in which

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes




Let's get this straight Lance - You were trying 
to tell me in a delicate way that I am deceived - and when I didn't bite you 
changed it to "fancy theologian" Why not 
just be up front like Dean and call me a liar? Why the constant games? And 
what's worse is that you don't ever speak only 
for yourself you are constantly trying to stir something up by including 
"others" in your observations; also you don't ever show 
anyscriptural grounds for your 
accusations because that would take time and effort and you just might have to 
think rather than shoot off the 
cuff.


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:25:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Web Dfn:'Fancy':illusion:something many people believe 
  that is false. I ask of those with whom others has disagreed, either mildly or 
  vehemently, does that one believe your theology to have been 'fancy'? I WOULD 
  SAY SO, YES! 
  
From: Dean Moore 


cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-)




  From: 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 illumineHis 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 ofLance'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 heartwhich 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..




Is it safe to assume then, Judy, that 'YOU are 
reading MY Words with the help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who 
scramble words; interject different meanings, and keep confusion going'? Also, 
if you read my words in this fashion then, what of the words of John, Bill, 'G' 
etc.?
Perhaps we should not be upset when you charge 
either us or 'living/dead theologians' as the problem is indeed 
yours.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 15, 2005 06:37
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I 
  don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them 
  personally.."
  
  I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to the 
  aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder 
  treatmen below than on other occasions.
  
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 15, 2005 06:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I 
don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them 
personally.."

You are doing with my words what your mentors do 
with God's Word Lance - which is interjecting your own 
reasonings.
As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own 
issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however 
is in my face at church and heis something 
else. Here is a man who apparently taught and his disciples 
today(whoappear intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead 
othersto pass on the image of a Heavenly Father- the one Jesus 
loved and communed with daily - who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and 
then punishes His Creation for doingwhat He decrees. Along the 
same lines he decrees some saved and some lost so the responsibility there 
is all on Him.

Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) 
to take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening 
in our day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to 
these men's words than the Words of Jesus Himself.

As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put 
your own spin on that. I never said anything about your 
teaching.
Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all 
of your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the 
help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, 
interject different meanings,and keep confusion going. I said nothing 
at all about your teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's 
at least deal with the truth of the matter Lance.



On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  "I don't have to accept their public 
  teachings when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' 
  (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me 
  (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin  
  Barth could not see) 
  
  IMO, what is further 
  implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To 
  reject a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them 
  personally' so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.
  
  When I say of Lance 'YOU 
  ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I 
  refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this 
  the case, Judy)
  
  May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate 
  with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ 
  Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for 
  word?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

I don't know these men and I said nothing, 
repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are 
not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is 
a LIE

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why 
  don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et 
  al?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You are reading with the help of the powers 
of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is 
an
unfounded and evil accusation. 


On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  No accusation here, Judy. This is a 
  simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating 
  persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so 
  doing.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: Judy Taylor; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/14/2005 8:28:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. 

jd
cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was
speaking to were going to stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they
were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is
considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the truth to you
make the messenger your enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the opponentisthe enemy. 

When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given momenton some level ...but the sinless 
perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when it is so obvious otherwise.)

jd

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done just that. 
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh? 
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or relevant. 

and this statementborders on insulting:  
One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)
Blainerb


I have to say something here -- both of you have made it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that your stay here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for crossing over. Well, consider your failure in this regard, as well. With asmuchvariety as exists here amongst us Christians, you would think someone would consider the Mormon religion.But this latest discussion, while revealing, would surely close the door to any serious student of the Bible. To put down "death" and the "cross" is to simply miss the point of the life of Christ here on this earth .. and miss the mark by a wide margin !!! 

jd


 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: I DO NOT NOW NOR, HAVE I EVER THOUGHT YOU AN 
INTENTIONAL LIAR! IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? WHEN YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE 
UNTRUE I BELIEVE YOU TO BE SINCERE, THOUGH WRONG. THAT IS NOT A 
LIAR.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 15, 2005 06:47
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and 
  Motes
  
  Let's get this straight Lance - You were 
  trying to tell me in a delicate way that I am deceived - and when I didn't 
  bite you changed it to "fancy 
  theologian" Why not just be up front like Dean and call me a liar? 
  Why the constant games? And what's worse is that you don't ever speak only for yourself you are constantly trying to 
  stir something up by including "others" in your observations; also you 
  don't ever show anyscriptural grounds 
  for your accusations because that would take time and effort and you just 
  might have to think rather than shoot off 
  the cuff.
  
  
  On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:25:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Web Dfn:'Fancy':illusion:something many people believe 
that is false. I ask of those with whom others has disagreed, either mildly 
or vehemently, does that one believe your theology to have been 'fancy'? I 
WOULD SAY SO, YES! 

  From: Dean Moore 
  
  
  cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-)
  
  
  
  
From: 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 illumineHis 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 ofLance'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 heartwhich 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..




Probably so, no need to repeat myself; anyone who loves 
truth by nature hates error. I can accept that these men may have been 
well meaning and may have even done good things. But why camp around their 
error? I understand that you will not agree since you don't believe that 
anyone can know the truth because of the Reformation and all that. My 
question then is how certain of thesetheologians have escaped the taint in 
your view and only the least of the brethren are stuck with it?. The ones Paul 
said should judge disputes in the church 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:37:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to the 
  aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder 
  treatmen below than on other occasions.
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
You are doing with my 
words what your mentors do with God's Word Lance - which is interjecting 
your own reasonings.
As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own 
issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however 
is in my face at church and heis something 
else. Here is a man who apparently taught and his disciples 
today(whoappear intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead 
othersto pass on the image of a Heavenly Father- the one Jesus 
loved and communed with daily - who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and 
then punishes His Creation for doingwhat He decrees. Along the 
same lines he decrees some saved and some lost so the responsibility there 
is all on Him.

Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) 
to take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening 
in our day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to 
these men's words than the Words of Jesus Himself.

As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put 
your own spin on that. I never said anything about your 
teaching.
Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all 
of your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the 
help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, 
interject different meanings,and keep confusion going. I said nothing 
at all about your teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's 
at least deal with the truth of the matter Lance.



On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  "I don't have to accept their public 
  teachings when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' 
  (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me 
  (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin  
  Barth could not see) 
  
  IMO, what is further 
  implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To 
  reject a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them 
  personally' so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.
  
  When I say of Lance 'YOU 
  ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I 
  refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this 
  the case, Judy)
  
  May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate 
  with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ 
  Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for 
  word?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

I don't know these men and I said nothing, 
repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are 
not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is 
a LIE

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why 
  don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et 
  al?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

You are reading with the help of the powers 
of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is 
an
unfounded and evil accusation. 


On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  No accusation here, Judy. This is a 
  simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating 
  persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so 
  doing. 
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your 
writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure 
those whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word.

RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/13/2005 8:53:21 PM 
Subject: RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Isnt it interesting that the mormon viewpoint about the Cross is the same as the JWitnesses? They also think of it as an ugly symbol. iz
cd: I view this as a way of removing honor from Christ for the work done on the cross-which was the will of God. So to them -the will of God was a sad thing- as if we got a bad/sad thing from the Lord in his plan of redemption?







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]But we still think the cross as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short of what He stands for--the most important of which is resurrection to life in the Kingdom of God--God's life. We do not think that is adequately represented by a cross.

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..




Your words are for the most part personal opinions 
Lance and Garys are indecipherable so I leave those to others who 
may be better equipped - 
some of you seem to get a kick out of them but I'm not interested in Dylan or 
the speculations 
of his fans.. Have you 
said something profound from God's Wordthat I missed Lance?

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:49:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Is it safe to assume then, Judy, that 'YOU are 
  reading MY Words with the help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who 
  scramble words; interject different meanings, and keep confusion going'? Also, 
  if you read my words in this fashion then, what of the words of John, Bill, 
  'G' etc.? Perhaps we should not be upset 
  when you charge either us or 'living/dead theologians' as the problem is 
  indeed yours.
  
From: Lance Muir 

I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to 
the aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder 
treatmen below than on other occasions.

From: Judy Taylor 

  
  You are doing with my words what your mentors do 
  with God's Word Lance - which is interjecting your own 
  reasonings.
  As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own 
  issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however 
  is in my face at church and heis something else. Here is a man who apparently taught and his 
  disciples today(whoappear intelligent in every other way) - 
  teach and lead othersto pass on the image of a Heavenly 
  Father- the one Jesus loved and communed with daily - who in His 
  Sovereignty decrees a thing and then punishes His Creation for 
  doingwhat He decrees. Along the same lines he decrees some 
  saved and some lost so the responsibility there is all on 
Him.
  
  Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) 
  to take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening 
  in our day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to 
  these men's words than the Words of Jesus Himself.
  
  As for what I said to you Lance - you have even 
  put your own spin on that. I never said anything about your 
  teaching.
  Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all 
  of your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the 
  help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, 
  interject different meanings,and keep confusion going. I said 
  nothing at all about your teaching or who does or does not help you. 
  So let's at least deal with the truth of the matter Lance.
  
  
  
  On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
"I don't have to accept their public 
teachings when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S 
WORD' (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has 
granted Me (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as 
Calvin  Barth could not see) 

IMO, what is further 
implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To 
reject a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them 
personally' so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.

When I say of Lance 'YOU ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, 
LANCE', I refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his 
person. (Is this the case, Judy)

May I then feel free to similarly 
adjudicate with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): 
May I employ Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for 
word?

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  I don't know these men and I said nothing, 
  repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't have
  to accept their public teachings when they 
  are not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
  To say that I personally denigrate these men 
  is a LIE
  
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why 
don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et 
al?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  You are reading with the help of the 
  powers of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is 
  an
  unfounded and evil accusation. 
  
  
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
No accusation here, Judy. This is a 
simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating 
persons both on and off TT. You call it

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat

The scripture says his sweat was as You say he bled from every poreChurch Manual says: "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 DC 19:18-19). Later, as he hung upon the cross, Jesus suffered painful death by one of the most cruel methods known to man," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of
the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 66, emphasis mine).AND SHRINK? DC 19 Therefore I command you to repentrepent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sorehow sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;17But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;18Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spiritand would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrinkNevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/atonement/holland_eom.htm Emphasizing these unconditional gifts arising out of Christ's atoning sacrifice, Latter-day Saints believe that other aspects of Christ's gift are conditional upon obedience and diligence in keeping God's commandments. To meet the demands of the Atonement, the sinless
Christ went first into the Garden of Gethsemane, there to bear the spiritual agony of soul only he could bear. He "began to be sorrowful and very heavy," saying to his three chief disciples, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, unto death" (Mark 14:34). Leaving them to keep watch, he went further into the garden, where he would suffer "the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam" (2 Ne. 9:21). There he "struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible" (JC, p. 613). Thus, Latter-day Saints teach that Christ "descended below all things"including every kind of sickness, infirmity, and dark despair experienced by every mortal beingin order that he might "comprehend all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth" (DC 88:6). This
spiritual anguish of plumbing the depths of human suffering and sorrow was experienced primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there that he was "in an agony" and "prayed more earnestly." It was there that his sweat was "as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44) for he bled "at every pore" (DC 19:18). Jesus Christ did not ATONE for our sins by suffering in the Garden Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You force your Interpretation into the Plain meaning of the scripturesDAVEH: How does my perspective on this force an interpretation any more than your perspective forces an interpretation that is consistent with your
traditions, Kevin? Do you believe he did not sweat drops of blood while in the Garden of Gethsemane? I thought that was an accepted understanding by most Christiansam I incorrect assuming such?Kevin Deegan wrote: considering it pained our Lord so much that he bled from every poreYou force your Interpretation into the Plain meaning of the scriptures LU 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tel him about the PRICE paid in the Garden Dave.DAVEH: It does seem to be a big one, considering it pained our Lord so much that he bled from every pore. Do you disagree, Kevin?Kevin Deegan wrote: Te l him about the PRICE paid in the Garden Dave.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cross, to the Christian, is a reminder of the tremendous price that Jesus paidDAVEH: Which price is torturous pain, suffering and death. That is exactly what the cross represents, is that not correct Perry?Charles
Perry Locke wrote: Blaine, you seem to be missing a fine point here. Christians do not use crosses as a symbol of Jesus, like mormons do with stars and planets. The cross, to the Christian, is a reminder of the tremendous price that Jesus paid for our sins. BIG difference. Perry -- ~~~ 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.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

2005-12-15 Thread Taylor





Dean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there 
could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure 
all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to 
his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you 
must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that 
goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave 
me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came 
down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross 
for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say 
rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said We 
bring you tidings of Great joy

Hey Dean, I underlined a statement in your post. Did you 
intend to say it that way? Bill



From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down 
to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS 
STATEMENT?

From: 
Taylor 


Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth 
and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for 
our salvation . . .

Huh?

From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Well 
stated, Dean. I liked this part 
best.TerryDean 
Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the 
cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping 
the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for 
redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not 
sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember 
that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes 
with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you 
gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the 
Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth 
and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in 
heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his 
name-even the angels agreed as they said We bring you 
tidings of Great 
joy

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 5:43:32 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?
cd: It is I said the preacher.

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 14, 2005 19:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation . . .

Huh?

-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:16 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossWell stated, Dean. I liked this part best..TerryDean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"

FW: RE: [TruthTalk]

2005-12-15 Thread ShieldsFamily









I found the response I sent; here it is
again. Have a blessed Christmas, iz











From: ShieldsFamily
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
6:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] RE:
[TruthTalk]





Thanks for asking, jd. I get very
discouraged to read what I see as scurrilous statements about Jews and Judaism
that denigrate what I consider to be a beautiful faith and a wonderful
people. I realize it comes from ignorance. I dont know a lot
about them either, to be sure, but I do know enough to realize that I love them
dearly. I dont even know how to begin to correct your (plural)
perceptions. I guess you could try to start by comprehending that the
Jews were called out by God, their nation was established by God, and God came
to us as one of them. If that doesnt give one pause, what
can? To think they are finished in Gods history is a huge mistake.
And if you have never had a glimpse of the community they enjoy, and the rich
history, and their deep reverence for God for life and for each other, even
while not yet knowing their Messiah, well how does one describe a rainbow to a
blind man? I guess that is why I hesitate to use my words to belittle
another person who claims to know Christ if I dont know a lot about
themthey could be very precious in the eyes of our Lord, just as the
Jews are today. iz 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
11:19 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: ShieldsFamily
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE:
[TruthTalk]







You are correct, Linda -- I know very little about these Olt
Testament people and it is a problem. What do you find as
appalling in what I wrote, specifically. I am just
wondering if you were planning of helping in addition to your attack
? 











I wouldn't mind a little input. Lay it on me. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Jd, your lack of understanding of the Jews
is appalling, as demonstrated by every post you write about them. Why not
try learning about them instead of speculating out of thin air? Im
talking HUGE lack of understandingHUGE! iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
9:30 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]



















Probably no interest on this one, but I'll throw it out there anyway.











Isreal claims ancestrythrough Abraham to God. But
there wasno Israel
from thebeginning of earth's history to around 1600 BC or so.












The Egyptians had their own culture, religion and
mythology. The Jews really had no national identity at
all. If if if the Egyptians had incorporated these people
into their society in the early years, there would have been no Israel of God
--- or, at the very least, Egyptian mythology and culture would
have survived in Israel.
But, the very fact of continued bondage IMO created an us
versus them psychology that prevented Israel from being lost in
the sea of Egyptian
nuance. 











Their escape from Egypt
was that of a people needing Divine help at the most basic
levels of national existence. . They had no law or national
structure. Their God of the past 400 years (of bondage) was a
God of tradition and little more. We are talking about 2 to 3
million people (so some assert) leaving Egypt with absolutely no
where to go, no way to survive militarily , a culture of bondage
and defeat as the National Story, And when they got to the Red Sea, reality hit them between the
eyes. This defeatist attitude becomes a part of their tradition and
, perhaps, is an aspect of their repeated rebellion. It is
almost as if they are the Divine Stepchild and they really don'tcare
forthisidentiy. Does this have anything to do
with fact that do not approach God as Father God ?? 











And what is Moses doing with the writing of Genesis if not collecting
the oral traditions in an effort at presenting Iseal (this brandnew
nation) with a history that it can claim as its own??? Perhaps he
begins with the Beginning because this was the perfect place to
start. .. contrasting the Egyptian
mythologies of the beginnings of man with an account of a sovereign God
and His creation. These Jews, freah out of Egypt,
most definitely knew of the Egyptian stories. The contrast would
have been startling. 











Whatever.











jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





I do not know if you served your country or not ,Dave, but if you did,
one of the first items of information recorded about you was your
"religeous preference" . It is on file. It may even be noted in some
way on your dog tags, I am not sure. It's been a long time. This I do
know. You get the marker that describes who you claim to follow. It
is not a one size fits all thing.


Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  
  it indicates that the deceased desired to be recognized as a
Christian
  
DAVEH: Whew.that's a pretty broad brush you are painting
with, Terry. Do you think the guys who were buried in this cemetery
  
.were asked if they wanted to be recognized as a
Christian before they died? To me that seems a bit of a stretch.
  
  
  
  No one gets a
cross that does not want one.
  
DAVEH: Do you really believe that, Terry. Look at this
website
  
  
  
Over 9300 dead buried there.  Do you think they refused
to bury the guys in Normandy who did not want to be recognized as a
Christian??? I suspect that if you died on the Normandy beaches,
and were subsequently buried there.you got a cross whether you were
Christian or atheist. Do you disagree? (BTWYou will notice a
single Star of David in the middle forefront of the picture.)
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  


In a national cemetery, Dave, you will see the cross over those who
claimed to be Christians and a star of David over those who were
Jewish. As I pointed out before, many people claim to be Christians
who are not. They are wannabees who have the desire but not the
faith. The cross does not guarantee that the person was born again, but
it indicates that the deceased desired to be recognized as a
Christian, and the government honored their desire. No one
gets a
cross that does not want one. I do not know what they put over a
Mormon's grave. Perhaps you could enlighten us.



Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is
neither
accurate
  
DAVEH: I assume you saw the picture of the cemetery with all the
crosses on it, John? (If not, I've posted it below.)  Do you think
those crosses indicate that those buried below them are Christians?
  
 Perhaps I am wrong, but as I see it most Christians are myopic in
their religious perspective. I think much of this is based on their
Biblical steadfastness in believing in the only true living God in such
a narrow sense that all others are of a minority status and their
perspective is not really relevant. Therefore, it is easy for
Christians who are surrounded by other similar thinking Christians to
perceive the world revolves around their Christian theology.
So, when most Christians see a cross, their immediate perception is one
of Jesus due to their lives being immersed in Christian culture, and
hence I believe they tend to impose their presupposed believes upon
others of whom they do not consider their cultural, historical or
religious background. (I have noticed a similar effect with the way
many Christians impose their religious perceptions on what they think
LDS folks believeand often times simply get it wrong due to their
biases.)
  
 Consider that only about a third (2 billion) of the world is
Christian, and two-thirds (4 billion) are non-Christian..
  


  
  
  -- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil

It was the DC that said Moroni was an Angel of light thus SATAN By the way he was not "posing" he was Transformed like your false apostles are transformed. Remember this "heavenly" messenger came on the occult Autumn Equinox and told joe to observe the same for the next few years.Moroni APPEARS as an angel of Light JSH 2:30I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noondayAutumn Equinox Visitations Introductory page of the DC, 3rd paragraph says; This took place in the early spring of 1820. In September, 1823, and at later times, Joseph Smith received visitations from Moroni, an angel of light"
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.http://www.lifeafter.org/angel.aspAngel of LightAggelos; a messenger. Phos; face, luminous, fire, light It is one of Satans most blatant exposés of the whole Mormon legend. The sad thing about it is that the Mormon wont see it because he believes that hes untouchable in his garments. Dont be fooled my friend, Satan is indeed an angel of light, just like Moroni. Think about it, he even took the place of the cross on top of the temples. Hes there trumpeting to the whole world that hes in charge. Hes not there to proclaim the return of Jesus, guaranteed.Don't think you can be deceived?Is this your Jesus?Occultists look for Angels of light [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Blainerb: "RIDLED?" You mean
"RIDDLED?" You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel appeared to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of light. By the way, when are you going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed, with 666 on it? We want a URL on that please. In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around the temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or pitchforks. Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, hallucinations? Don't let these things get to you, Kevin. You must get a hold of yourself! In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL and the guy with the red suit pitchfork is just the maintenance man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: If Kevin were honest with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the stars"plastered all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all five-sided, are not all inverted. Some are, some are not. They were placed there for decorative purposes, as well as symbolizing the North Star, the Morning star, the Star of Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the creations of God, etc.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

many Churches have a cross on top. Is that just a coincident? There is a reasonLDS buildings have a Golden Angel on top pointing east just another coincident? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you hate the cross also?DAVEH: No Kevin..I do not hate the cross. I just find it peculiarly interesting that many Christians seem so attached to the device used to torture and kill our Lord. When Jesus returns to the earth, do you think it likely he will be wearing a chain around his neck with a cross attached? Furthermore, why do you feel the implied need to categorize people as cross lovers or cross haters? Is it not possible that one can look upon the cross in its historical context, by
recognizing what it did to our Savior without categorizing him (not referring to Jesus) as a cross hater? How would you categorize Jesus.is he a cross lover or hater?Kevin Deegan wrote: So you find it WEIRD too Do you hate the cross also?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *EXACTLY what he finds weird.*DAVEH: WWJD.Have you ever wondered if Jesus feels like..._/I will cling to the old rugged cross/_.again.ordo you think he wants to be reminded of..._/The emblem of suffering and shame/_...it he experienced on it? Do you think Jesus feels the
cross*/_Has a wondrous attraction..._/*.For...*/_'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,_/*which may not be something our Lord needs to be reminded about, so why do Christians think he'll..*/_cherish the old rugged cross,_/*...Unless they feel he needs to be re minded of.._/The emblem of suffering and shame;/_...it represents. IFF it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus would find such thinking weird, then why wouldn't Christians consider the feelings Jesus may have about the cross?Kevin Deegan wrote: Still waiting on Blaines explanation of *EXACTLY what he finds weird.* */ShieldsFamily /* wrote: *THE OLD RUGGED CROSS * *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 best For a world of lost sinners was slain.* *_/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 wondrou s attraction for me_/; For the dear Lamb of God left His glory above To bear it to dark Calvary.* */_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.* *In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine, A wondrous beauty I see, /_For 'twas on that old cr oss Jesus suffered and died,_/ To pardon and sanctify me.* */_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.* *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.* */_So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,_/ Till my t rophies at last I lay down; _/I will cling to the old rugged cross,/_ And exchange it some day for a crown.* Yes, a lost person would think that those lyrics are "weird", indeed. iz *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:*
Monday, December 12, 2005 10:11 PM *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org *Subject:* Re: [TruthTalk] Cross In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, "He Loved Me with a Cross". iz One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was //The Old Rugged Cross//. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of t hat old rugged cross. :) Blainerb Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -- ~~~ 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.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:15:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

In a message dated 12/13/2005 7:13:22 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Except it is not Biblical. (Not that you would care.) iz
Revelation 2:28 "and I will give him the morning star . . . (the morning star here symbolizes the first resurrection from the dead--those who come forth in the morning of the first resurrection . . .)
Revelation 22:16 ""I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
cd:If you used these stars to remember Christ why don't you live by his words who told us to remember the cross?Add these to you collection of stars. Amos 5:26 But you have borne the tabernacle of your Molock and Chium your image, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.27 Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity...
Isaiah 47;13 Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from the things that shall come upon thee.14 Behold they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them, they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame:... And just think Dave say there is no fire in hell-Mormons have it backwards God does not like people that look to stars and Blain thinks we should all throw our crosses away and get stars-but coming from one that said Smith should have killed the preacher who told him what the bible said instead of merely beating him across the yard-I would expect such as this.

It is common knowledge that the morning star is Venus. 

Blainerb





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [TruthTalk] Cross



Blainerb: Crosses, or any other symbols of religious belief should never be denigrated. But I still like stars better as symbols for Jesus Christ, especially "the Bright and Morning Star." That star (Venus) symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ," asit appears first in the evening, then gets lost (buried) behind the sun, and then later appearson the eastern horizon preceding the sun as the morning star.  The symbolism is so much more precise and meaningful.

Re: [TruthTalk] Worshipful Master

  "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer. Blessed to open the last dispensation. Kings shall extol him and nations revere" (LDS hymn #27, Praise to the man). Worshipful Master  http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/sitehttp://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/this_category=216store=439item_number=0-8425-2612-9form=shared3/gm/detail.htmldesign=439  "Praise to the Man" Fifteen Classic BYU Devotionals about the Prophet Joseph Smith
 
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission?
Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a
drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road
to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate?
Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and
leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles
from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.
  

Terry

  
  
  
  
  

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and
stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in
the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a
hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission
in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are
living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of
omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by
correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then
there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other
sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:22:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

EXACTLY what he finds weird.DAVEH: WWJD. Have you ever wondered if Jesus feels like...I will cling to the old rugged cross.again.ordo you think he wants to be reminded of...The emblem of suffering and shame...it he experienced on it? Do you think Jesus feels the crossHas a wondrous attractionFor...'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and 
died,which may not be something our Lord needs to be reminded about, so why do Christians think he'll..cherish the old rugged cross,...Unless they feel he needs to be reminded of..The emblem of suffering and shame;...it represents.  IFF it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus would find such thinking weird, then why wouldn't Christians consider the feelings Jesus may have about the cross?
cd: Then tell me whydoes Jesus wears the marks of the cross on his body? Thomas was told to touch the nail prints in his hands and to trust his hand into the spear mark in his side-Christ wears them so that we will remember to give his glory for our salvation on the cross-that is why the cross is mentioned many times in the NT.The Cross is for the glory of Christwho went humblythere to die as a lamb lead to the slaughter.Yet Mormons claim that Smithwas as a lamb lead to the slaughter-while killing two men and seriously wounding a third to keep from dying so he could keep from meeting God. John the Baptist according to history-on the other hand ran and placed his heard on the chopping block to meet God. Something strange is going on in Mormonland.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Still waiting on Blaines explanation of EXACTLY what he finds weird.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
















THE OLD RUGGED CROSS 


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.
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.
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.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I see,For 'twas on that old cr oss Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me.
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.
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.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my t rophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange it some day for a crown.
Yes, a lost person would think that those lyrics are weird, indeed. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:11 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross



In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, He Loved Me with a Cross. iz

One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)

Blainerb


Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -- 
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 7:52:09 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Dean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"

Hey Dean, I underlined a statement in your post. Did you intend to say it that way? Bill
cd: Yes I did Bill.




From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?

From: Taylor 


Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation . . .

Huh?

From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]Well stated, Dean. I liked this part best.TerryDean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 8:06:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

"Take up your star daily, and follow me".
cd: LOL[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Well, JW's have their own reasons, I suppose--probably different from ours. Most JW's despise Mormons, just as they despise all non-JW Christians. I don't believe we despise your religious tenets--we honor your right to believe as you wish, we just don't agree with everything you teach. Sometimes the contrast seems to be a put down for you, but it is more just an assertion of what we believe, and some take offense at that. The cross is a deeply embedded symbol of Jesus Christ, and I have no real argument with that--I just like stars better, especially since kevin and Co. have been so aggressive in trying to make the ones on our temples appear to represent Satanism. His efforts have only all the more convinced me that stars are better than crosses--actually I never really thought much or even cared much about the subject until coming under attack. But now, I have to take sides, and you guys are forcing me (us) to take a position. So, my position, is naturally, stars are better than crosses. :) However, I have to say I still have no really strong feelings against crosses--as I said, they are clearly deeply embedded in the Christian psyche--which includes mine as well as yours. 



In a message dated 12/13/2005 7:13:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Isnât it interesting that the mormon viewpoint about the Cross is the same as the JWitnesses? They also think of it as an ugly symbol. iz







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]But we still think the cross as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short of what He stands for--the most important of which is resurrection to life in the Kingdom of God--God's life. We do not think that is adequately represented by a cross. <
/DIV>

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross




cd: I have underlined some of my words that you need to reread as you are actually agreeing with what I wrote.




- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 8:33:44 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Dean Moore wrote: 




You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry






cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

2005-12-15 Thread Charles Perry Locke


Blaine,

  Try reading through the NT and replace every occurrence of the word 
cross with star. The text becomes meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part 
of the Chrsitian landscape, directly from scripture. It has meaning and 
value beyond merely an instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our 
freedom in Christ. The star does not.


  The atonement did not happen in Gethsemane, it did not happen at the 
resurrection. It happened on the cross. Our Lord cried out it is finished 
at the moment the debt we can never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try 
to change that is to deny scripture.


Perry



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:24:13 EST


As I said to Iz, the cross is deeply  embedded in the Christian psyche.  It
is in mine as well. But since  you guys have made an issue of the stars 
thing,

it has occurred to me that stars  are better than crosses, and I advocate
changing crosses on all Christian  churches to stars--whether 5 or 6 
pointed, is
not an issue with me.The Jewish star of David, by the way, is probably 
a
symbol of their expected  Messiah--I'd have to check that out.  Maybe they 
had

it right in the  beginning.

Blainerb
In a message dated 12/13/2005 7:36:59 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

check  out these  crosses:

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/index.html


From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Date:  Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:39:55 EST


Blainerb:  There are  quite a few cross  songs in the LDS hymnbook.  It 
is
not a  bad word, it is just the context in  which it is used.  We believe 
 in
taking up our cross,  so to speak,  which means we give  up the 
pleasures

of the
world, and are even willing to   suffer if necessary to live more
righteously.
  But we  still think the cross  as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short 
 of
what He stands for--the most  important of which is  resurrection to life 
in

the
Kingdom of God--God's   life.  We do not think that is adequately
represented
by  a  cross.  Now stars, whether pentagrams or whatever, obviously fill  
the
bill, since that's where we hope to be--in heaven, where the stars  are 
at.

  :)
  Stars make for an excellent  symbol of Jesus Christ, whereas a cross  
is

dubious at  best.


In a message dated 12/13/2005 5:56:55 A.M.  Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  writes:

Why did  the LDS CHOIR sing songs about the  Cross you dispise at 
general

Conference  last  October?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message  dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard  Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One of the  best  songs I ever heard was titled, Ã¢â¬ÅHe Loved Me with 
a

CrossÃ¢â¬
Â.   iz


One of the  weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged  Cross.  It
seemed
to glorify the cross in a negative  way.  I  doubt the Lord even to this 
day

is overly fond of that old  rugged  cross. :)
Blainerb









--
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.

[TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath









- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/12/2005 9:57:25 AM 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox


Please tell us your view of resting on the Saturday Sabbath. I hesitate to bring up the subject because of such stinking attitudes from some on TT. iz
cd: The attachment I sent with this mailer gives a lot of info on the Saturday Sabbath-but what summed it up for me was the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:16,20 In verse 16 he is speaking to those in "Judaea" (Jews) in verse 20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,neither on the Sabbath day". I had to ask myself whichSabbath would those in Judaea recognize? Also if one of the Commandments were removed from the bible wouldn't it make bible headlines and it does not do so-and why is Jesus making reference to it in the end days? Things acceptable to do on the sabbath-Works of piety (helping poor), works of necessity (things one cannot do on another day), and preaching the gospel.Hope this helps and knowit usually makes the demons of hell scream-listen and you will hear their objection in just a little while.

Here's an article by a dear friend of ours, Dr. Daniel Botkin.Kayshalome-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"Remember the Sabbath, to Keep It Holy?" or "Forget the Sabbath, and Call ItCommon?"A ParableOne hot, summer day, my wife bought some delicious frozen yogurt. Mythree-year old daughter, when she heard the word yogurt, immediately madeit clear that she did not want any. The only yogurt she had ever tasted wasthe plain, sour kind. We tried to explain to her that this yogurt wasdifferent. Youll like this yogurt, we told her. It tastes just likeraspberry ice cream. In spite of our coaxing and pleading, she stubbornlyrefused to taste it. I know exactly what was going on in her mind. She wasthinking, Dont talk to me about yogurt. I know what yogurt is. Its plainand its sour and I cant stand it!Many Christians react in a similar way when they hear the word Sabbath.They immediately make it clear that they want nothing to do with it. As onewriter observed, The pulpit ignores Exodus 20. Even church members despisethe fourth command, Remember the Sabbath day.[1] One reason for thisnegative reaction to the Sabbath is because Christians associate the Sabbathwith the kind of man-made legalism of Jesus enemies. If we conducted aword-association test and asked Christians to say the first thing that comesto mind when they hear the word sabbath, many would probably respond withwords like Pharisee, hypocrite, or legalist. Just as the word yogurtmade a negative impression on my daughters mind, the word sabbath leaves asour taste in the minds of many Christians. Dont talk to me about theSabbath, they say. I know what the Sabbath is. Its something thatPharisees, hypocrites, and legalists are concerned about!When my daughter finally agreed to taste the raspberry yogurt, shediscovered that it was not at all what she had expected. Instead of beingdistasteful, it was sweet and delightful.The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart.The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold:Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. --- Pslam 19:7-10TraditionJudaism teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath was binding on Israel alone(Melkita Shabb. 1; Jubilees 2:19-21, 31). Traditional Christianity teachesthe same thing. Is it possible that so many sincere people could possibly bewrong for so many centuries? History shows that it is very possible. Judaisms refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah demonstrates that sincereJews can be mistaken. Christianitys shameful history of anti-Semitism andpersecution is evidence that sincere Christians can be mistaken. Ourbeliefs, attitudes, and actions should be shaped by a proper understandingof the Scriptures, not by the opinion of the majority.As a young believer in 1973, I was first made aware of the Sabbath questionby a Seventh Day Adventist friend. (Adventists teach that all Christiansshould observe the seventh day Sabbath). After reading some Adventistsliterature and some anti-Adventist literature, I came to the conclusion thatthe Adventists were mistaken. My conclusion was based primarily on asuperficial, faulty understanding of Col. 2:16 (Let no man therefore judgeyouin respect ofthe sabbath days) and Rom. 14:5 (One man esteemeth oneday above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fullypersuaded in his own mind). I choose to do what most of my peers weredoing, and esteemed every day alike.As I continued to seek God over the years, I experienced a nagging,persistent urge to reexamine the Sabbath question. A

Fw: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath

2005-12-15 Thread Carroll Moore



-Forwarded Message- From: Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Dec 15, 2005 10:08 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Saturday Sabbath 












- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/12/2005 9:57:25 AM 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox


Please tell us your view of resting on the Saturday Sabbath. I hesitate to bring up the subject because of such stinking attitudes from some on TT. iz
cd: The attachment I sent with this mailer gives a lot of info on the Saturday Sabbath-but what summed it up for me was the words of Jesus in Matt. 24:16,20 In verse 16 he is speaking to those in "Judaea" (Jews) in verse 20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,neither on the Sabbath day". I had to ask myself whichSabbath would those in Judaea recognize? Also if one of the Commandments were removed from the bible wouldn't it make bible headlines and it does not do so-and why is Jesus making reference to it in the end days? Things acceptable to do on the sabbath-Works of piety (helping poor), works of necessity (things one cannot do on another day), and preaching the gospel.Hope this helps and knowit usually makes the demons of hell scream-listen and you will hear their objection in just a little while.

Here's an article by a dear friend of ours, Dr. Daniel Botkin.Kayshalome-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"Remember the Sabbath, to Keep It Holy?" or "Forget the Sabbath, and Call ItCommon?"A ParableOne hot, summer day, my wife bought some delicious frozen yogurt. Mythree-year old daughter, when she heard the word yogurt, immediately madeit clear that she did not want any. The only yogurt she had ever tasted wasthe plain, sour kind. We tried to explain to her that this yogurt wasdifferent. Youll like this yogurt, we told her. It tastes just likeraspberry ice cream. In spite of our coaxing and pleading, she stubbornlyrefused to taste it. I know exactly what was going on in her mind. She wasthinking, Dont talk to me about yogurt. I know what yogurt is. Its plainand its sour and I cant stand it!Many Christians react in a similar way when they hear the word Sabbath.They immediately make it clear that they want nothing to do with it. As onewriter observed, The pulpit ignores Exodus 20. Even church members despisethe fourth command, Remember the Sabbath day.[1] One reason for thisnegative reaction to the Sabbath is because Christians associate the Sabbathwith the kind of man-made legalism of Jesus enemies. If we conducted aword-association test and asked Christians to say the first thing that comesto mind when they hear the word sabbath, many would probably respond withwords like Pharisee, hypocrite, or legalist. Just as the word yogurtmade a negative impression on my daughters mind, the word sabbath leaves asour taste in the minds of many Christians. Dont talk to me about theSabbath, they say. I know what the Sabbath is. Its something thatPharisees, hypocrites, and legalists are concerned about!When my daughter finally agreed to taste the raspberry yogurt, shediscovered that it was not at all what she had expected. Instead of beingdistasteful, it was sweet and delightful.The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart.The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold:Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. --- Pslam 19:7-10TraditionJudaism teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath was binding on Israel alone(Melkita Shabb. 1; Jubilees 2:19-21, 31). Traditional Christianity teachesthe same thing. Is it possible that so many sincere people could possibly bewrong for so many centuries? History shows that it is very possible. Judaisms refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah demonstrates that sincereJews can be mistaken. Christianitys shameful history of anti-Semitism andpersecution is evidence that sincere Christians can be mistaken. Ourbeliefs, attitudes, and actions should be shaped by a proper understandingof the Scriptures, not by the opinion of the majority.As a young believer in 1973, I was first made aware of the Sabbath questionby a Seventh Day Adventist friend. (Adventists teach that all Christiansshould observe the seventh day Sabbath). After reading some Adventistsliterature and some anti-Adventist literature, I came to the conclusion thatthe Adventists were mistaken. My conclusion was based primarily on asuperficial, faulty understanding of Col. 2:16 (Let no man therefore judgeyouin respect ofthe sabbath days) and Rom. 14:5 (One man esteemeth oneday above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fullypersuaded in his own mind). I choose to do what most of my

Re: FW: RE: [TruthTalk]




-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








I found the response I sent; here it is again. Have a blessed Christmas, iz





From: ShieldsFamily [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:30 PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [TruthTalk]

Thanks for asking, jd. I get very discouraged to read what I see as scurrilous statements about Jews and Judaism that denigrate what I consider to be a beautiful faith and a wonderful people. You cannot quote or point to a single statement in my post that is "scurrilous." Not one. I do not count the Jews as being any more "wonderful" than any number of others - but neither do I discount them. They are God's chosen and nothing in my post assults that notion - nothing (prove me wrong !!) 

I realize it comes from ignorance.Your's is the only ignorance in display on this one. You must have spent your money for reading comprehension on dog-walking training. 

I dont know a lot about them either, to be sure, but I do know enough to realize that I love them dearly. I dont even know how to begin to correct your (plural) perceptions. I guess you could try to start by comprehending that the Jews were called out by God, their nation was established by God, and God came to us as one of them.That is the basis of my overview, Linda. But since you didn't read the article with a view to understanding, you missed it. If it were not for God's intervention - there would be no Israel !! - that is one of the theme's of my post and it is obvious. 

If that doesnt give one pause, what can?No kidding.

To think they are finished in Gods history is a huge mistake. 
You could be right but my post does not even hint at this aspect of the discussion - one way or the other. 

And if you have never had a glimpse of the community they enjoy, and the rich history, and their deep reverence for God for life and for each other, even while not yet knowing their Messiah, 

My post has nothing to do with this statement of yours. Nothing. Your stated perspective above is written by one who has just admitted that she does not know the Jew very well. You might try reading some of the Jewish websites that deal with their veiw of God versus the Christian view. To pretend that they can accept God apart from the Christ is ridiculous - and it seems as though you are saying this. If not -- then they are just as lost and as screwed up as any other people. The Isreal of God is found in Christ. We are His chosen and only the Jew in Christ is a part of that scenario. Such does preclude God's continued attachment to modern day Israel. He may very well continue with them as He did in their rebellion of previous times. 
well how does one describe a rainbow to a blind man? I guess that is why I hesitate to use my words to belittle another person who claims to know Christ if I dont know a lot about themthey could be very precious in the eyes of our Lord, just as the Jews are today. iz You insult other Christian frequently.but nice try.

jd





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:19 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: ShieldsFamilySubject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [TruthTalk]


You are correct, Linda -- I know very little about these Olt Testament people and it is a problem. What do you find as "appalling" in what I wrote, specifically. I am just wondering if you were planning of helping in addition to your attack ? 



I wouldn't mind a little input. Lay it on me. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Jd, your lack of understanding of the Jews is appalling, as demonstrated by every post you write about them. Why not try learning about them instead of speculating out of thin air? Im talking HUGE lack of understandingHUGE! iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:30 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]






Probably no interest on this one, but I'll throw it out there anyway.



Isreal claims ancestrythrough Abraham to God. But there wasno Israel from thebeginning of earth's history to around 1600 BC or so. 



The Egyptians had their own culture, religion and mythology. The Jews really had no national identity at all. If if if the Egyptians had incorporated these people into their society in the early years, there would have been no Israel of God --- or, at the very least, Egyptian mythology and culture would have survived in Israel. But, the very fact of continued bondage IMO created an "us versus them" psychology that prevented Israel from being lost in the sea of Egyptian nuance. 



Their escape from Egypt was that of a people needing Divine help at the most basic levels of national existence. . They had no law or national

Re: Fwd: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil

Stop trying to mislead[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 12/14/2005 10:13:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, Blainerb473 writes:Blainerb: "RIDLED?" You mean "RIDDLED?" You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel appeared to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of light. By the way, when are you
going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed, with 666 on it? We want a URL on that please. I have checked, it is definitely not on any Mormon building anywhere!!!In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around the temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or pitchforks. Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, hallucinations? Don't let these things get to you, Kevin. You must get a hold of yourself! In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL and the guy with the red suit pitchfork is just the maintenance man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb: If Kevin were honest with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the stars"plastered all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all five-sided, are not all inverted. Some are, some are not. They were placed there for decorative purposes, as well as symbolizing the North Star, the Morning star, the Star of Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the creations of God, etc. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:13:46 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evilTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Blainerb:
"RIDLED?" You mean "RIDDLED?" You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel appeared to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of light. By the way, when are you going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed, with 666 on it? We want a URL on that please. In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around the temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or pitchforks. Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, hallucinations? Don't let these things get to you, Kevin. You must get a hold of yourself! In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL and the guy with the red suit pitchfork is just the maintenance man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: If Kevin were honest with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the stars"plastered all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all five-sided, are not all inverted. Some are, some are not. They were placed there for decorative purposes, as well as symbolizing the North Star, the Morning star, the Star of Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the creations of God, etc.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil

You are very stirred up about those symbols on your temple hah?  Just keep trying to ignore them they are nothing[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I don't doubt it at all, Iz, you are definitely a class act on TT (Except when you kiss up to Satan--er, I mean, Kevin). :)Blainerb  In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:52:54 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Itâs good enough for me. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:16 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evilDo they teach reading where you're from Izzie? How 'bout 'rithmatic? And Spellling?
 Blainerb:   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

God is against IDOLATRY of any kind Who are these mysterious people who IDOLize the cross?Why did it take all these years for you to be forthright with your FEELINGS about the cross?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All these years on TT and we are just now learning how you really feel about the CrossDAVEH: ??? You disagree, Kevin? Are you suggesting that those who do idolize the cross do not offend Jesus??? Just for so there is no misunderstanding in my thinking about thisFTRI believe Jesus is not pleased with anybody who idolizes the cross. If
you disagree, say so..I will not denigrate you for disagreeing with me on this.Kevin Deegan wrote: DAVEH: Do you suppose the same could be said of those idolizing crosses? All these years on TT and we are just now learning how you really feel about the Cross. How can that be? Have you been shielding us from certain "Truths" because we are Not worthy nor Ready for the Meat of the word? Is it because ofLDS teaching on "milk before meat." ?http://home.teleport.com/~packham/tract.htm They have been trained, however, to give investigators "milk before meat," that is, to postpone revealing anything at all that might make an investigator hesitant, even if it is true.
Apostle Boyd Packer Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning. W hat is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy. What other beliefs have you shielded us from?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You OFFEND Jesus ChristDAVEH: Do you suppose the same could be said of those idolizing
crosses?Kevin Deegan wrote: You OFFEND Jesus ChristI almost thought you were serious in your Apology tillNow, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:) What is fair is fair, huh? Blainerb

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Offence given offence taken - MORMONS??

Because part of his core beliefs isthat people should not call other people HYPOCRITES!Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Sent: 12/15/2005 1:04:05 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Offence given  offence
 taken - MORMONS??DAVEH: I have a pretty thick skin, Lance. I don't recall anything specifically said by the below mentioned TTers that offended me. I suspect most LDS folks would take offense though, as I'm not a very sensitive guy.as TTers well know.  cd: Then why all the complaining to Perry?Lance Muir wrote:   Perry, Dean, Kevin et al certainly GIVE offence vis a vis Mormonism. Do you, the Mormon contingent on TT, take offence at what's said by them?--   ~~~  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.
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's get this straight Lance - You were trying to tell me in a delicate way that I am deceived - and when I didn't bite you changed it to "fancy theologian" Why not just be up front like Dean
and call me a liar? Why the constant games? And what's worse is that you don't ever speak only for yourself you are constantly trying to stir something up by including "others" in your observations; also you don't ever show anyscriptural grounds for your accusations because that would take time and effort and you just might have to think rather than shoot off the cuff. On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:25:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Web Dfn:'Fancy':illusion:something many people believe that is false. I ask of those with whom others has disagreed, either mildly or vehemently, does that one believe your theology to have
been 'fancy'? I WOULD SAY SO, YES! From: Dean Moore cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-) From: 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 illumineHis 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 ofLance's vivid imagination and fanciful thinking. judytOn 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 heartwhich 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 personOK 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 personNo 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 seeKevin 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to deathYou take this too lightly. There are some who can not bear any correction. Any correction or reproof to them strikes them at the core, it might as well be a stone! When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.Correction is
grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.DON"T SAY THOSE THINGS! HB 12 the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: For they could not endure that which was commanded Like the crowd that only knows One thing in the Bible "Jesus said Don't judge" it becomes their Indulgence to SIN with both hands fervently!REFUSAL to
HEARJeremiah 5:3 O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.Jeremiah 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Judy Taylor; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/14/2005 8:28:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Crossmental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A
THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction
their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was speaking to were going to stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem?
Does speaking the truth to you make the messenger your enemy?On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the opponentisthe enemy. When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given momenton some level ...but the
sinless perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when it is so obvious otherwise.)jdFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done just that. Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the
street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:) What is fair is fair, huh? BlainerbIn a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or relevant. and this statementborders on insulting:One of the

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..

Perhaps you should just post what you mean and mean what you post?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it safe to assume then, Judy, that 'YOU are reading MY Words with the help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words; interject different meanings, and keep confusion going'? Also, if you read my words in this fashion then, what of the words of John, Bill, 'G' etc.? Perhaps we should not be upset when you charge either us or 'living/dead theologians' as the problem is indeed yours.- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 15, 2005 06:37 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally.."I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to the aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder treatmen below than on other occasions.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 15, 2005 06:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally.."You are doing with my words what your mentors do with God's Word Lance - which is interjecting your own reasonings. As for Calvin and Barth.
Barth had his own issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however is in my face at church and heis something else. Here is a man who apparently taught and his disciples today(whoappear intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead othersto pass on the image of a Heavenly Father- the one Jesus loved and communed with daily - who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and then punishes His Creation for doingwhat He decrees. Along the same lines he decrees some saved and some lost so the responsibility there is all on Him.Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I) to take heed how we hear. I am amazed that thiscanbe happening in our day. In some circless there are moreppl paying heed to these men's words than the Words of Jesus Himself.As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put your own spin on that. I never said anything about your teaching. Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all of your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words, interject different meanings,and keep confusion going. I said nothing at all about your teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's at least deal with the truth of the matter Lance.On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"I don't
have to accept their public teachings when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' (implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin Barth could not see) IMO, what is further implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To reject a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them personally' so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.When I say of Lance 'YOU ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this the case, Judy)May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for word?From: Judy Taylor I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't have to accept their public teachings when they are not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word. To say that I personally denigrate these men is a LIEOn Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?From: Judy Taylor You are reading with the help of the powers of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an unfounded and evil accusation. On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:No accusation here, Judy. This is a simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so doing. From: Judy Taylor Oh, here is one I missed, 1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance 2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word. 3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you are doing right here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh well! What's newOn Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am). Let me take

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Take up your star daily, and follow me.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Take up your star daily, and follow me".[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, JW's have their own reasons, I suppose--probably different from ours. Most JW's despise Mormons, just as they despise all non-JW Christians. I don't believe we despise your religious tenets--we honor your right to believe as you wish, we just don't
agree with everything you teach. Sometimes the contrast seems to be a put down for you, but it is more just an assertion of what we believe, and some take offense at that. The cross is a deeply embedded symbol of Jesus Christ, and I have no real argument with that--I just like stars better, especially since kevin and Co. have been so aggressive in trying to make the ones on our temples appear to represent Satanism. His efforts have only all the more convinced me that stars are better than crosses--actually I never really thought much or even cared much about the subject until coming under attack. But now, I have to take sides, and you guys are forcing me (us) to take a position. So, my position, is naturally, stars are better than crosses. :) However, I have to say I still have no really strong feelings against crosses--as I said, they are clearly deeply embedded in the Christian psyche--which
includes mine as well as yours. In a message dated 12/13/2005 7:13:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isnât it interesting that the mormon viewpoint about the Cross is the same as the JWitnesses? They also think of it as an ugly symbol. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]But we still think the cross as a visible symbol of Jesus falls short of what He stands for--the most important of which is resurrection to life in the Kingdom of God--God's life. We do not think that is adequately represented by a cross.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the
Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to
Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If
we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

cd: Then tell me whydoes Jesus wears the marks of the cross on his body? Thomas was told to touch the nail prints in his hands and to trust his hand into the spear mark in his side-Christ wears them so that we will remember to give his glory for our salvation on the cross-that is why the cross is mentioned many times in the NT.The Cross is for the glory of Christwho went humblythere to die as a lamb lead to the slaughter.Yet Mormons claim that Smithwas as a lamb lead to the slaughter-while killing two men and seriously wounding a third to keep from dying so he could keep from meeting God. John the Baptist according to history-on the other hand ran and placed his heard on the chopping block to meet God. Something strange is going on in Mormonland.You hit the "NAIL" right on the
head! Are you Bearing the MARKS? Gal 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.2 Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/14/2005 2:22:27 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossEXACTLY what he finds weird.DAVEH: WWJD. Have you ever wondered if Jesus feels like...I will cling to the old rugged
cross.again.ordo you think he wants to be reminded of...The emblem of suffering and shame...it he experienced on it? Do you think Jesus feels the crossHas a wondrous attractionFor...'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,which may not be something our Lord needs to be reminded about, so why do Christians think he'll..cherish the old rugged cross,...Unless they feel he needs to be reminded of..The emblem of suffering and shame;...it represents. IFF it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus would find such thinking weird, then why wouldn't Christians consider the feelings Jesus may have about the cross? cd: Then tell me whydoes Jesus wears the marks of the cross on his body? Thomas was told to touch the nail prints in his hands and to trust his hand into the spear mark in his side-Christ wears them so that we will remember to give his glory for our salvation on the cross-that is why the cross is mentioned many times in the NT.The Cross is for the glory of Christwho went humblythere to die as a lamb lead to
the slaughter.Yet Mormons claim that Smithwas as a lamb lead to the slaughter-while killing two men and seriously wounding a third to keep from dying so he could keep from meeting God. John the Baptist according to history-on the other hand ran and placed his heard on the chopping block to meet God. Something strange is going on in Mormonland.Kevin Deegan wrote: Still waiting on Blaines explanation of EXACTLY what he finds weird.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THE OLD RUGGED CROSS 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. 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. 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. In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I
see,For 'twas on that old cr oss Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me. 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. 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. So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my t rophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange it some day for a crown. Yes, a lost person would think that those lyrics are weird, indeed. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:11 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossIn a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, He Loved Me with a Cross. izOne of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)Blainerb Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





My apology, Dean. I was trying to read everything before going to work
and got to reading too fast to understand what I was reading.
Terry

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  cd: I have underlined some of my words that you need to reread
as you are actually agreeing with what I wrote.
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Terry Clifton 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
12/15/2005 8:33:44 AM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of
omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about
giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on
the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the
interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to
be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy
broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and
neither would you.
  

Terry

  
  
  
  
  

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error
and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so
in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a
hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of
omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If
we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin
of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by
correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then
there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other
sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross



Funny -- I thought this came from a Dean post. So he and JS kinda think alike at this point !!! Interesting. 

jd
-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?


Joe Smith

Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4.) 
http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtmlLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 14, 2005 19:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation . . .

Huh?

-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:16 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossWell stated, Dean. I liked this part best..TerryDean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"



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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom."

You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU..
Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?

AND how do you do such?

Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
The bible speaks of it this way.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!

As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL!
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Moore wrote:

You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





:









- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:22:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

EXACTLY what he finds weird.DAVEH: WWJD. Have you ever wondered if Jesus feels like...I will cling to the old rugged cross.again.ordo you think he wants to be reminded of...The emblem of suffering and shame...it he experienced on it? Do you think Jesus feels the crossHas a wondrous attractionFor...'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and 
died,which may not be something our Lord needs to be reminded about, so why do Christians think he'll..

cd: Here is the truth of Mormonism-they do not view themselves as Christians-They make that claim to draw Christians away from Christ but as shown here DaveH does not view himself as a Christian-I have found with dealing with Mormons that they are snakes in the grass-Snakes use the grass to hide themselves until one get close enough then they bite but in this case the harmis tothe soul. That is why Mormons want to be called brothers as we will lower our guard around a loving brother. This is why the bible instructs us not to eat nor fellowship with false prophets it is for our protection not theirs.He that is able to hear let him hear. I also noticed at the Mormon Church I attended (only once to see if these things I heard were true)in Franklin, NC that when the Mormons partook of the Lords supper that water was used instead of wine -or grape juice-but the bread was used. Why was the blood removed from the ceremony-as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin-does this ha
ve anything to do with their dislike for the cross? I'll bet Satan hates the cross for it is also a symbol of his defeat?cherish the old rugged cross,...Unless they feel he needs to be reminded of..The emblem of suffering and shame;...it represents.  IFF it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus would find such thinking weird, then why wouldn't Christians consider the feelings Jesus may have about the cross?
cd: Then tell me whydoes Jesus wears the marks of the cross on his body? Thomas was told to touch the nail prints in his hands and to trust his hand into the spear mark in his side-Christ wears them so that we will remember to give his glory for our salvation on the cross-that is why the cross is mentioned many times in the NT.The Cross is for the glory of Christwho went humblythere to die as a lamb lead to the slaughter.Yet Mormons claim that Smithwas as a lamb lead to the slaughter-while killing two men and seriously wounding a third to keep from dying so he could keep from meeting God. John the Baptist according to history-on the other hand ran and placed his heard on the chopping block to meet God. Something strange is going on in Mormonland.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Still waiting on Blaines explanation of EXACTLY what he finds weird.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
















THE OLD RUGGED CROSS 


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.
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.
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.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I see,For 'twas on that old cr oss Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me.
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.
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.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my t rophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange it some day for a crown.
Yes, a lost person would think that those lyrics are weird, indeed. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:11 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross



In a message dated 12/12/2005 7:42:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One of the best songs I ever heard was titled, He Loved Me with a Cross. iz

One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)

Blainerb


Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo!

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:45:26 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

My apology, Dean. I was trying to read everything before going to work and got to reading too fast to understand what I was reading.Terry
cd: I have done the same thing-no problem:-)Dean Moore wrote: 



cd: I have underlined some of my words that you need to reread as you are actually agreeing with what I wrote.



- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 8:33:44 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Dean Moore wrote: 




You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry






cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: Kevin Deegan
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:57:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Funny -- I thought this came from a Dean post. So he and JS kinda think alike at this point !!! Interesting. 

jd
cd: uag-Tell me this is not so-I don't really have room for another wife at this point-I am just now learning about how to get alone the one I have had for 24 yrs. MaybeI can send the new one(s) to the dark side of the moon with the 6'2" Quaker like people.
-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?


Joe Smith

Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4.) 
http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtmlLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 14, 2005 19:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation . . .

Huh?

-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:16 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossWell stated, Dean. I liked this part best...TerryDean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"



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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





To tell you these things would be bragging, Kev. What I am doing is
known by the One who needs to know. He does it through me. Remember
the instructions? Don't let your right hand know what the other is
doing. Those who brag about their deeds already have their rewards.
You might think about that.
Terry
=

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You have got to be joking, Dean! There
is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting
others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?
  
  AND how do you do such?
  
  Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of
consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
  It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
  The bible speaks of it this way.
  
  My little children, let us not
love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
  Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!
  
  As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
  Pure religion and undefiled before
God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
  
  What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
  Looking foward to your
TESTIMONY! PTL!
  
  
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Dean
Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of
omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about
giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on
the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the
interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to
be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy
broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and
neither would you.
  

Terry

  
  
  
  
  

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error
and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so
in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a
hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission
in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are
living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of
omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by
correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then
there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other
sins of omission?

  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


makes sense to me

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Web Dfn:'Fancy':illusion:something many people believe that is false. I ask of those with whom others has disagreed, either mildly or vehemently, does that one believe your theology to have been 'fancy'? I WOULD SAY SO, YES! 

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 15, 2005 06:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


cd: You are right on the money sister-hang in there:-)




- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:47:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

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 ofLance'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 heartwhich 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 seeKevin 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 orme.

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 orme.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Let me

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


tongue in cheek - for sure. 

-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: Kevin Deegan
Sent: 12/15/2005 1:57:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Funny -- I thought this came from a Dean post. So he and JS kinda think alike at this point !!! Interesting. 

jd
cd: uag-Tell me this is not so-I don't really have room for another wife at this point-I am just now learning about how to get alone the one I have had for 24 yrs. MaybeI can send the new one(s) to the dark side of the moon with the 6'2" Quaker like people.
-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?


Joe Smith

Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4.) 
http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtmlLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




HUH?? INDEED!! 'God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach..and die on the cross'?

WHO IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS STATEMENT?

- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: December 14, 2005 19:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation . . .

Huh?

-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgDate: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:16 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CrossWell stated, Dean. I liked this part bestTerryDean Moore wrote: 



cd: Case and point without the cross there could be no savior-hence no salvation and as keeping the law was a failure all were headed to hell-no way to pay for redemption. Yes, our sins added to his suffering-so let us not sin any more as to crucify Christ anew. But you must remember that God gave us the gift of Christ-suffering and all that goes with him is the gift of God-Would you tell God I am sad that you gave me such a great gift? Or should one have Joy that God the Father came down to earth and walked as a man to teach us truth and to die on the cross for our salvation-Who now stand in heaven with Great honor-Sad? I say rejoice and praise his name-even the angels agreed as they said "We bring you tidings of Great joy"



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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/15/2005 2:19:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross



:









- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 12/14/2005 2:22:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

EXACTLY what he finds weird.DAVEH: WWJD. Have you ever wondered if Jesus feels like...I will cling to the old rugged cross.again.ordo you think he wants to be reminded of...The emblem of suffering and shame...it he experienced on it? Do you think Jesus feels the crossHas a wondrous attractionFor...'twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and 
died,which may not be something our Lord needs to be reminded about, so why do Christians think he'll..

cd: Here is the truth of Mormonism-they do not view themselves as Christians-They make that claim to draw Christians away from Christ but as shown here DaveH does not view himself as a Christian-I have found with dealing with Mormons that they are snakes in the grass-Snakes use the grass to hide themselves until one get close enough then they bite but in this case the harmis tothe soul. That is why Mormons want to be called brothers as we will lower our guard around a loving brother. This is why the bible instructs us not to eat nor fellowship with false prophets it is for our protection not theirs.He that is able to hear let him hear. I also noticed at the Mormon Church I attended (only once to see if these things I heard were true)in Franklin, NC that when the Mormons partook of the Lords supper that water was used instead of wine -or grape juice-but the bread was used. Why was the blood removed from the ceremony-as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin-does this ha
 ve anything to do with their dislike for the cross? I'll bet Satan hates the cross for it is also a symbol of his defeat?cherish the old rugged cross,...Unless they feel he needs to be reminded of..

cd: Here it is again. "they" is referring to Christians-He is making a distinction between us (Mormons) and they (Christians).Yet earlier he lied and said he was a Christian. Clearly he does not view himself as such. Why is he here if not to promote Mormonism that is why he invited me to attend the Mormon church as He did to Judy a few days back-To bring us away from the cross that Mormonsdispise.So when Dave calls you brother does he really mean it or is it just another lie "they".The emblem of suffering and shame;...it represents.  IFF it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus would find such thinking weird, then why wouldn't Christians consider the feelings Jesus may have about the cross?
cd: Then tell me whydoes Jesus wears the marks of the cross on his body? Thomas was told to touch the nail prints in his hands and to trust his hand into the spear mark in his side-Christ wears them so that we will remember to give his glory for our salvation on the cross-that is why the cross is mentioned many times in the NT.The Cross is for the glory of Christwho went humblythere to die as a lamb lead to the slaughter.Yet Mormons claim that Smithwas as a lamb lead to the slaughter-while killing two men and seriously wounding a third to keep from dying so he could keep from meeting God. John the Baptist according to history-on the other hand ran and placed his heard on the chopping block to meet God. Something strange is going on in Mormonland.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Still waiting on Blaines explanation of EXACTLY what he finds weird.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
















THE OLD RUGGED CROSS 


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.
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.
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.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I see,For 'twas on that old cr oss Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me.
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.
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.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my t rophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange it some day for a crown.
Yes, a lost person would think that those lyrics are weird, indeed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross


Not sure why you are talking about the sin of omission.Christ obviously believed that personal sin was a part the (ontological ??) equation. We see it's implicite reference in the words "andif ye being evil know how to do good .." and again " ..he who is without sin .." and again " .. there is none who are good ..." His sermonrecorded in Matt 5-7 gives usadditional "legal requirement" that most surely finds us all standing "in error."  As a matter of fact, oneof the above quotes comes from that sermon. 

I was just making a point that Judywas not prepared to accept - a point from scripture, by the way. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: Judy Taylor; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/14/2005 8:28:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. 

jd
cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross









- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: Dean Moore
Sent: 12/15/2005 2:53:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Not sure why you are talking about the sin of omission.Christ obviously believed that personal sin was a part the (ontological ??) equation. We see it's implicite reference in the words "andif ye being evil know how to do good .." and again " ..he who is without sin .." and again " .. there is none who are good ..." His sermonrecorded in Matt 5-7 gives usadditional "legal requirement" that most surely finds us all standing "in error."  As a matter of fact, oneof the above quotes comes from that sermon. 

I was just making a point that Judywas not prepared to accept - a point from scripture, by the way. 

jd
cd: As stated before -there were people under the Old Covenant who had no sin upon them (Luke 1: 5,6).If they could be sinless under the Old Covenant why can we under the New Covenant?He ones who brought the adulteress women into the Temple were sinning by bringing her into the temple in the first place.And Christ knew this and their hearts.As we have the law of God written on our hearts,and theHoly Spirit living within us it is possible to be sinless. Sin is a transgression of the known lawand God also looks at the intent of the heart unto accountability. Every young true convertis without sin for a time as they were pardoned (justified) for all their past sins. We can be sinless-but one must walk in holiness to obtain this John.
sp;
 



-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: Judy Taylor; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/14/2005 8:28:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. 

jd
cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?

RE: FW: RE: [TruthTalk]

2005-12-15 Thread ShieldsFamily









Sorry if I misread you, jd. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005
9:29 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: FW: RE: [TruthTalk]



















-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


I found the response I sent; here it is
again. Have a blessed Christmas, iz











From: ShieldsFamily
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
6:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Norton AntiSpam] RE:
[TruthTalk]





Thanks for asking, jd. I get very
discouraged to read what I see as scurrilous statements about Jews and Judaism
that denigrate what I consider to be a beautiful faith and a wonderful
people. You cannot quote or point to a single
statement in my post that is scurrilous. Not
one. I do not count the Jews as being any more
wonderful than any number of others - but neither do I
discount them. They are God's chosen and nothing in my post assults
that notion - nothing (prove me wrong !!) 



I realize it comes from ignorance.Your's is
the only ignorance in display on this one. You must have spent your
money for reading comprehension on dog-walking training. 



I dont know a lot about them
either, to be sure, but I do know enough to realize that I love them
dearly. I dont even know how to begin to correct your (plural)
perceptions. I guess you could try to start by comprehending that the
Jews were called out by God, their nation was established by God, and God came
to us as one of them.That is the basis of my overview,
Linda. But since you didn't read the article with a view to understanding,
you missed it. If it were not for God's intervention - there would
be no Israel
!! - that is one of the theme's of my post and it is obvious. 



If that doesnt give one
pause, what can?No kidding.



To think they are finished in
Gods history is a huge mistake. 

You could be right but my
post does not even hint at this aspect of the discussion - one way
or the other. 



And if you have never had a glimpse of the
community they enjoy, and the rich history, and their deep reverence for God
for life and for each other, even while not yet knowing their Messiah, 



My post has nothing to do
with this statement of yours. Nothing. Your stated perspective
above is written by one who has just admitted that she does not know the Jew
very well. You might try reading some of the Jewish websites that
deal with their veiw of God versus the Christian view. To pretend
that they can accept God apart from the Christ is ridiculous - and it
seems as though you are saying this. If not -- then they
are just as lost and as screwed up as any other people. The Isreal
of God is found in Christ. We are His chosen and only the Jew in
Christ is a part of that scenario. Such does preclude God's continued
attachment to modern day Israel.
He may very well continue with them as He did in their rebellion of previous
times. 

well how does one describe a rainbow to a
blind man? I guess that is why I hesitate to use my words to belittle
another person who claims to know Christ if I dont know a lot about themthey
could be very precious in the eyes of our Lord, just as the Jews are
today. iz You insult other Christian
frequently.but nice try.



jd











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005
11:19 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: ShieldsFamily
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE:
[TruthTalk]







You are correct, Linda -- I know very little about these Olt
Testament people and it is a problem. What do you find as
appalling in what I wrote, specifically. I am just
wondering if you were planning of helping in addition to your attack
? 











I wouldn't mind a little input. Lay it on me. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Jd, your lack of understanding of the Jews
is appalling, as demonstrated by every post you write about them. Why not
try learning about them instead of speculating out of thin air? Im
talking HUGE lack of understandingHUGE! iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005
9:30 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]



















Probably no interest on this one, but I'll throw it out there anyway.











Isreal claims ancestrythrough Abraham to God. But
there wasno Israel
from thebeginning of earth's history to around 1600 BC or so.












The Egyptians had their own culture, religion and
mythology. The Jews really had no national identity at
all. If if if the Egyptians had incorporated these people
into their society in the early years, there would have been no Israel
of God --- or, at the very

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom." You
have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?
Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that
and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out
those other sins of omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

It is always Bragging not False Piety? To TESTIFY how you are giving Drink to a thirsty man is BRAGGING? You brought up the subject, I thought you were gonna bless us with some Testimony! Doesn't the bragging part come from ones ATTITUDE? Bragging is not in the essence of the act of compassion but is something that comes forth from within ones heart. To simply say I work at the mission with the homeless would not be bragging. Surely there must be some instance you could relate without bragging To avoid the issue by using a device like I don't want to brag, implies that you are doing so very much we could not avoid the thought. Or that you are doing nothing and must cover up. I see no reason that you could not give a simple statement and not brag. There is a difference between what you do for God AND What is God DOing Through you?
Was Paul BRAGGING in 2 Co 11Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.What was your purpose in the original comments, but to imply you are fufilling while Dean is "only about correcting others"Is the "One who needs to know" Blessed by that? You are concerned and do not want to BRAG but have NO Problem disparaging Dean? Funny how some preach but when asked to display how they are DOing what they ask others to do, well then it would be bragging LOL But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.BTW You are right that God already knowsTerry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To tell you these things would be bragging, Kev. What I am doing is known by the One who needs to know. He does it through me. Remember the instructions? Don't let your right hand know what the other is doing. Those who brag about their deeds already have their rewards. You might think about that.Terry=Kevin Deegan wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about
correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke
down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments
given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

The issue is NOT ERROR but wickedness Jesus was dealing with their HEART Condition NOT their ERROR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Not sure why you are talking about the sin of omission.Christ obviously believed that personal sin was a part the (ontological ??) equation. We see it's implicite reference in the words "andif ye being evil know how to do good .." and again " ..he who is without sin .." and again " .. there is none who are good ..." His sermonrecorded in Matt 5-7 gives usadditional "legal requirement" that most surely finds us all standing "in error." As a matter of fact, oneof the above quotes comes from that sermon. I was just making a point that
Judywas not prepared to accept - a point from scripture, by the way. jd-- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Judy Taylor; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/14/2005 8:28:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Crossmental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any
difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of
omission? __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





You have your reward, Kevin. I am still working on mine. Draw any
conclusion from this that suits you. It makes little difference what
you think.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  It is always Bragging not False Piety?
  To TESTIFY how you are giving Drink to a thirsty man is BRAGGING?
  You brought up the subject, I thought you were gonna bless us
with some Testimony!
  Doesn't the bragging part come from ones ATTITUDE?
  Bragging is not in the essence of the act of compassion but is
something that comes forth from within ones heart.
  To simply say I work at the mission with the homeless would not
be bragging.
  Surely there must be some instance you could relate without
bragging
  To avoid the issue by using a device like I don't want to brag,
implies that you are doing so very much we could not avoid the thought.
  Or that you are doing nothing and must cover up.
  I see no reason that you could not give a simple statement and
not brag.
  There is a difference between what you do for God 
  AND
  What is God DOing Through you?
  
  Was Paul BRAGGING in 2 Co 11
  
  Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as
a fool) I am more; in labours more
abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent,
in deaths oft.
  
  
  What was your purpose in the original comments, but to imply you
are fufilling while Dean is "only about correcting others"
Is the "One who needs to know" Blessed by that?
  You are concerned and do not want to BRAG but have NO Problem
disparaging Dean?
  
  Funny how some preach but when asked to display how
they are DOing what they ask others to do, well then it would be
bragging LOL
  But I keep under my body, and bring it
into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached
to others, I myself should be a castaway.
  
  BTW You are right that God already knows
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  To
tell you these things would be bragging, Kev. What I am doing is known
by the One who needs to know. He does it through me. Remember the
instructions? Don't let your right hand know what the other is doing.
Those who brag about their deeds already have their rewards. You might
think about that.
Terry
=

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You have got to be joking, Dean!
There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting
others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?
  
  AND how do you do such?
  
  Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of
consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
  It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
  The bible speaks of it this way.
  
  My little children, let us not
love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
  Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!
  
  As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
  Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
  
  What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
  Looking foward to your
TESTIMONY! PTL!
  
  
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Dean
Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of
omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about
giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on
the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the
interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to
be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy
broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and
neither would you.
  

Terry

  
  
  
  
  

cd: There is a difference in pointing out
error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to
do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a
hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission
in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are
living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of
omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by
correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then
there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other
sins of omission?

  


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

AND how do you do such?

Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
The bible speaks of it this way.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!

As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL!
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Moore wrote:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to bragInvariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...) I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward.
Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does yourlittle chuck and jive
have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom." You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and
stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little
children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Dislocated Humility

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/truthapol.html Apologetics, Truth, and Humility by Douglas Groothuis Recently when I was discussing philosophy with an earnest undergraduate student, she informed me that she rejected the idea that she could know "the truth" because this would condemn everyone who disagreed with her. Since philosophers have traditionally exulted in winning arguments instead of eliminating them, I asked why she shunned victory in favor of terminal agnosticism. She explained, "If I claim to know the truth, then I must also claim that whoever disagrees with me is wrong, and that would make me intolerably arrogant." This student was suffering from a case of dislocated humility. Instead of being rightly
humble about her ability always to know truly or infallibly, she was instead humble over the mere *possibility* of discovering the truth. She identified the very idea of possessing truth with pride. I suggested a shift in perspective: What if we view truth as something that might be discovered by diligent seekers? Then one who claims to know the truth need not be arrogant. She need not view herself pridefully as the owner or creator of truth, but could rather behave as a humble servant of truth who wants to make it known to others for their own good. She could thus humbly enter into dialogue over the matter by giving arguments and evidence to support her views. The student reluctantly admitted that she had never thought of it that way before, and said she would think more about it. I prayed she would, because until she grasps the concept of *attainable* truth, she
will never comprehend the identity of Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). This encounter highlights how crucial humility is to the Christians apologetic task in a world steeped in relativism. On the one hand we must place humility in the right place. We should never misplace our humility by disparaging the only thing that will ever set anyone free-- the truth itself. The central claims of God's revelation should be understood, explained and defended. I thank the one true God that this journal and those involved in apologetics ministries are providing sound reasons for the faith and are challenging the critics of Christianity. On the other hand, ambitious Christian apologists often lose something indispensable in the very process of defending the indispensable. In refusing to jettison the idea of truth, we often jettison humility instead. We can
become, as the student feared, arrogant. We may hold the truth falsely. It is dangerously easy for apologists to become prideful when we identify the truth with our ego instead of with God Himself. Instead of contending for "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3), we may end up contending for our *own* infallibility. We should heed Blaise Pascal, who wrote in his PensÇes (Thoughts on Religion and Some Other Subjects) that "it is false piety to preserve peace at the expense of truth. It is also false zeal to preserve truth at the expense of charity." Several facts can point us toward the fruitful partnership of true piety and true zeal. First, Christian truth is best defended when it is *held both firmly and humbly*-- in the manner one would hold a newborn child. It is infinitely precious and therefore worth defending; but it is a gift not of our own
making. We lay no claim to its greatness or even to the fact that we recognize it as truth (Eph 2:8-9). We know by grace that grace may be known. If we speak of "our faith" we should emphasize that the truth is not our possession; rather the truth possesses us. No one put it better than G.K. Chesterton in 'Orthodoxy' who confessed concerning Christianity: "I will not call it my philosophy; for I did not make it. God and humanity made it; and it made me." Second, our knowledge of biblical truth should *grow over a lifetime*. Orthodoxy will always exceed my present understanding of orthodoxy. The humble apologist will defend Christianity's core claims to the best of his ability -- the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification by faith, and so on -- while remaining open to discussion about less central and more debatable issues such as the particularities of
eschatology or church government. Third, Jesus said that the meek, not the belligerent, will inherit the earth. No matter how winsome the presentation, the gospel will offend those with hardened hearts; but we should *avoid increasing the offense through arrogance*. Paul is a model when he says, "We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us" (2 Cor. 4:7). The principles of Paul's pastoral instruction to Timothy apply to all apologists: "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct,

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





I am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do
not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.
Terry


Kevin Deegan wrote:

  NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.
  When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!
  
  It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such 
such when one doesNOTHING.
  
  God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE
  They profess that they know God;
but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto
  every good work reprobate..
  
  They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they
do not want to brag
  
  Invariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to
me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If
I had a nickel for every time...)
  I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week?
  They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want
their reward.
  Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO
NOT DO?
  Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them.
  They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be
appropriate. 

--
Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  A rather simple task is to read the post
instead of going off half cocked
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with
Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have
a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By
definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to
thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is
"begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO
DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If
the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is
begging the question and is "ad hom." 

You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the
"Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two
levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding
that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. 
Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just
cannot do this rather simple task. 

jd




--
Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  You have got to be joking,
Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about
correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?
  
  AND how do you do such?
  
  Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing
of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
  It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
  The bible speaks of it this way.
  
  My little children, let us
not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and
in truth.
  Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!
  
  As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
  Pure religion and
undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless
and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the
world.
  
  What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
  Looking foward to
your TESTIMONY! PTL!
  
  
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Dean
Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of
omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about
giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on
the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the
interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to
be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy
broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and
neither would you.
  

Terry

  
  
  
  
  

cd: There is a difference in pointing out
error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to
do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a
hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission
in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are
living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of
omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by
correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then
there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other
sins of omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ Kevin projecting evil

2005-12-15 Thread Blainerb473





URL, please!!

Blainerb

In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:48:00 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stop 
  trying to mislead[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


In a message dated 12/14/2005 10:13:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
Blainerb473 writes:

  Blainerb: "RIDLED?" You mean "RIDDLED?" 
  You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the 
  truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American 
  flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel 
  appeared to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of 
  light. By the way, when are you 
  going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed, with 666 on 
  it? We want a URL on that please. 
  I have checked, it is definitely not on 
  any Mormon building anywhere!!!
  
  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Your religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to 
joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around 
  the temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or 
  pitchforks. Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, 
  hallucinations? Don't let these things get to you, Kevin. You 
  must get a hold of yourself!
  
  
  In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  LOL and the guy with the red suit  
pitchfork is just the maintenance 
man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  Blainerb: If Kevin were 
  honest with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the 
  stars"plastered all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all 
  five-sided, are not all inverted. Some 
  are, some are not. They were placed there for 
  decorative purposes, as well as symbolizing the North Star, the 
  Morning star, the Star of Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the 
  creations of God, etc. 
  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 
00:13:46 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Restoration - BAAL Worship/ 
Kevin projecting evilTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org


Blainerb: "RIDLED?" You mean "RIDDLED?" 
You and your street preacher friends have eyes but are blind to the 
truth. You see occult stuff all over, I suppose, even in American 
flags, American war planes, medals of honor, etc. If an angel appeared 
to you, you would say it was Satan posing as an angel of light. By the 
way, when are you going to tell us more about the beat up star you showed, 
with 666 on it? We want a URL on that please. 



In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:18:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your 
  religion is RIDLED with occult Themes and you want to 
  joke?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blainerb: LOL The maintenance people in and around the 
temple wear ordinary work clothing--no red suits or pitchforks. 
Have you been having nightmares, or, worse yet, hallucinations? Don't 
let these things get to you, Kevin. You must get a hold of 
yourself!


In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:38:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LOL and the guy with the red suit  
  pitchfork is just the maintenance 
  man[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blainerb: If Kevin were honest 
with TT'rs, he would tell you the truth--the stars"plastered 
all over" the Salt Lake Temple, altho all five-sided, are not all inverted. Some are, some are 
not. They were placed there for decorative purposes, as 
well as symbolizing the North Star, the Morning star, the Star of 
Bethlehem, the Telestial Kingdom, the creations of God, 
etc.

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat

2005-12-15 Thread Blainerb473







Blainerb: These are the words of Jesus Christ--as revealed to 
the prophet Joseph Smith. Thanks, Kevin, I was trying to find 
them. 



In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:47:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  AND SHRINK?
  DC 19 Therefore I command you to 
  repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and 
  by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings 
  be sore—how sore you know not, how 
  exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 
  For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that 
  they might not suffer if they would repent;17But if they would not 
  repent they must suffer even as 
  I;18Which suffering caused 
  myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, 
  and to bleed at every 
  pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not 
  drink the bitter cup, and shrink—Nevertheless, glory be to 
  the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of 
  men.

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat

2005-12-15 Thread Blainerb473




In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:47:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jesus Christ did not ATONE for our 
  sins by suffering in the Garden

Thanks Kevin, we were waiting for the final word from your Royal Highness . 
. . Now we know the truth because you said it--What greater 
authority can we have, than Kevin of TT?

Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..

2005-12-15 Thread ttxpress




your straw man, 
clearly straw

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:57:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But why camp around their 
error?

[TruthTalk] Jackie Mason

2005-12-15 Thread ShieldsFamily

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the
article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47904

Thursday,
December 15, 2005

HOLIDAY BLUES
Jackie Mason to
defend Christmas
Will ride down 5th Avenue for Jews Against
Anti-Christian Defamation

Posted: December 15, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

2005WorldNetDaily.com

Jackie Mason

Representing
a Jewish organization that defends Christians, comedian Jackie Mason will ride
down New York City's
5th Avenue
today to highlight the war on Christmas.

Mason is
a founding member of Jews Against
Anti-Christian Defamation, or JAACD, the organization sponsoring the event.
According to a statement from the group, the entertainer will ride in a 15-foot
Ford Excursion with banners proclaiming, Jews for 'It's OK To Say Merry
Christmas.'

His route will pass many of the retail stores that no longer
wish shoppers a 'Merry Christmas,' JAACD stated.

The ride,
scheduled for 1:30 p.m., will begin at St. Patrick's Cathedral where Mason and
others will have a press conference. Those scheduled to participate are Don
Feder, JAACD president, Bill Donahue, executive director of the Catholic
League, Rabbi Aryeh Spero, a member of the JAACD advisory board, and attorney
and author Raoul Felder.

On Dec.
1, Jews Against Anti-Christian held a press conference at the National Press
Club to publicize efforts to purge Christmas from the culture, highlighting the
Wisconsin school that changed the
lyrics of Silent Night to Cold in the Night.
Yesterday, the
school relented, saying the Christmas carol will be sung in its original
form.

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat

Sure just let me know what you need I'll be there for you.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Blainerb: These are the words of Jesus Christ--as revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith. Thanks, Kevin, I was trying to find them. In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:47:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:AND SHRINK?  DC 19 Therefore I command you to
 repentârepent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be soreâhow sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;17But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;18Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore,
 and to suffer both body and spiritâand would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrinkâNevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] sweat

The Holy Bible is the authority.  The bible does not teach any such thingAs a Matter of fact where does the BoM or DC teach such?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:47:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  Jesus Christ did not ATONE for our sins by suffering in the GardenThanks Kevin, we were waiting for the final word from your Royal Highness . . . Now we know the
 truth because you said it--What greater authority can we have, than Kevin of TT?Blainerb   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Don't get so emotional.Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.TerryKevin Deegan wrote: NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work
reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to bragInvariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...) I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward. Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I read your post a couple of
times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go
directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom." You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in
truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Maybe you meantalebearer as the word gossip does not appearGossip n One who runs from house to house, tattling and telling news; an idle tattler.TA'LEBEARER, n. [tale and bear.] A person who officiously tells tales; one who impertinently communicates intelligence or anecdotes, and makes mischief in society by his officiousness.OFFI'CIOUS a. Busy; intermeddling in affairs in which one has no concern. Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.TerryKevin Deegan wrote: NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to bragInvariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...) I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They
want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward. Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task is to read the post instead of
going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom."
You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a
drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by
telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love
of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo!

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser

What on earth are you talking about JD? I
understand that Jesus was teaching at the Mt. of Olives and it was
early in the morning. There were ppl there listening to
him teach -does it matter how many?. The Scribes
and Pharisees (the ones Jn the Baptist called a
generation of vipers in Matt 3:7) brought a woman to him
sayingthey had caught her committing adultery,
right in the act - then they reminded him of the Law and asked
what he wantedto do
with her. The Law (Lev 20:10) states clearly that both man and woman are
to be stoned.
Since you are so keyed in to what you call "ontological
truth" - what was their game? No mental
gymnastics
here JD -No desire to add or take away one jot or
tittle. Lets see a little of your theological expertise in action

Were they trying to get him
to OK stoning just one of them? Whatever it was they were setting Him up
to
accuse Him. I'm glad Hewas not on TT. Don't need any setup to be accused
here.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:28:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is,
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of
them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not
going to participate. But none of that makes any
difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in
possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as
He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except,
of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd
From:
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else
JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was
speaking to were going to stone the adultress to
death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon
handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So
what is your problem? Does speaking the truth to you make the messenger your enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have
that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated,
nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know
the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently
OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the
opponentisthe enemy.

When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .,"
it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given
momenton some level ...but the
sinless
perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when
it is so obvious otherwise.)

From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious
beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although
I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the
top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our
opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I
may have done just that.
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who
supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers
at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more
recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on
TT. And the same for
those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case
letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh?
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your
assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or
relevant.

and this statementborders on insulting:
One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged
Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative
way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that
old rugged cross. :)
Blainerb

I have to say something here -- both of you have made
it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that your stay
here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for crossing
over. Well, consider your failure in this
regard, as well. With asmuchvariety as
exists here amongst us Christians, you would think someone would
consider the Mormon religion.But this latest discussion,
while revealing, would surely close the door to any serious student of
the Bible. To put down "death" and the

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser


1. Where does it say that man is to be stoned for having sex with a single woman or a prostitute? 

2.. How do you know that the man was not stoned? 

3. Who are you accusing in the subject line above? 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

What on earth are you talking about JD? I understand that Jesus was teaching at the Mt. of Olives and it was
early in the morning. There were ppl there listening to him teach -does it matter how many?. The Scribes
and Pharisees (the ones Jn the Baptist called a generation of vipers in Matt 3:7) brought a woman to him
sayingthey had caught her committing adultery, right in the act - then they reminded him of the Law and asked 
what he wantedto do with her. The Law (Lev 20:10) states clearly that both man and woman are to be stoned.
Since you are so keyed in to what you call "ontological truth" - what was their game? No mental gymnastics 
here JD -No desire to add or take away one jot or tittle. Lets see a little of your theological expertise in action  
Were they trying to get him to OK stoning just one of them? Whatever it was they were setting Him up to 
accuse Him. I'm glad Hewas not on TT. Don't need any setup to be accused here.


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:28:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was speaking to were going to stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the truth to you make the messenger your enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the opponentisthe enemy. 

When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given momenton some level ...but the sinless 
perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when it is so obvious otherwise.)

jd

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done just that. 
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh? 
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or relevant. 

and this statementborders on insulting:  
One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)
Blainerb


I have to say something here -- both of you have made it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that your stay here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for crossing over. Well, consider your failure in this regard, as well. With asmuchvariety as exists here amongst us Christians, you would think someone would consider the Mormon religion.But this latest discussion, while revealing, would surely close the door to any serious student of the Bible. To put down "death" and the "cross" is to simply miss the point of the life of Christ here on this earth .. and miss the mark by a wide margin !!! 

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] Cross

You have turned the "flapping of the gums" into a vocation, Kevin. This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth.

I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian. I met your challenge and what did we get for that -- yet another challenge of someone else. You are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be proud of.

You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of us.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.
When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!

It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.

God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate..
They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to brag

Invariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...)
I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week?
They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward.
Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO?
Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them.
They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

AND how do you do such?

Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED!
It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
The bible speaks of it this way.

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!

As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL!
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Moore wrote:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





Offi'cious is a new word for me, but I like it. It
does the job, maybe even better than gossip.



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you meantalebearer as the word gossip does not appear
  
  Gossip n One who runs from house to house,
tattling and telling news; an idle tattler.
  
  TA'LEBEARER, n. [tale and bear.] A person who officiously
tells tales; one who impertinently communicates intelligence or
anecdotes, and makes mischief in society by his officiousness.
  
  OFFI'CIOUS a. Busy; intermeddling in affairs
in which one has no concern.
  
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I
am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do
not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.
Terry

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.
  When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!
  
  It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such 
such when one doesNOTHING.
  
  God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE
  They profess that they know
God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and
unto every good work reprobate..
  
  They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed
they do not want to brag

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

Well TerryI am not going to stoop to using the words real stupid.  Why have you become so emotional?Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Offi'cious is a new word for me, but I like it. It does the job, maybe even better than gossip.Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you meantalebearer as the word gossip does not appearGossip n One who runs from house to house, tattling and telling news; an idle tattler.TA'LEBEARER, n. [tale and bear.] A person who officiously tells tales; one who impertinently communicates intelligence or anecdotes, and makes mischief in society by his
 officiousness.OFFI'CIOUS a. Busy; intermeddling in affairs in which one has no concern.  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.TerryKevin Deegan wrote: NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.  When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such  such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as
 you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate..  They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to brag
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] jd versus JD

Who are you accusing in the subject line above? jd[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You have turned the "flapping of the gums" into a vocation, Kevin. This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth.I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian. I met your challenge and what did we get for that -- yet another challenge of someone else. You are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be proud of. You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of us. jd-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to bragInvariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...)
I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward. Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom." You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels
("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in
DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to your TESTIMONY! PTL!
Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of
omission?Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping Yahoo!

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

if you still have that one tooth."Discussions" with you always devolve into questions of whether your gut hangs below your belt still. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You have turned the "flapping of the gums" into a vocation, Kevin. This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth.I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian. I met your challenge and what did we get for that -- yet another challenge of someone else. You are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be proud of. You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of
us. jd-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums. When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such such when one doesNOTHING.God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.. They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not want to bragInvariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me
and says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a nickel for every time...) I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week? They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their reward. Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO? Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them. They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I read your post a couple of times. My comments appear to be appropriate. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] A rather simple task
is to read the post instead of going off half cocked[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does yourlittle chuck and jive have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean? Not one single thing. Few on this site have a clue as to "ad hom." but your comments below are "ad hom." By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to thediscussion or remarks at hand. Another phrase for "ad hom" is "begging the question." "Truth" regarding "ad hom" has NOTHING TO DO WITH "AD HOM."This is just something you allmade up. If the response is an atack on any other issue but the one present, it is begging the question and is "ad hom." You have this fantasy that you are busier
doing the "Lord's work" than anyone else. A ridiculous assertion or two levels ("busier" and "Lord's work).. You are constantly demanding that those who offer a criticisim measure up to YOU.. Get a life and stay on subject --- or maybe you just cannot do this rather simple task. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man?AND how do you do such?Ifind
that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. They love in "WORD" but never in DEED! It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience. The bible speaks of it this way.My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!As a proponent of PURE RELIGION Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS. Looking foward to
your TESTIMONY! PTL! Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: You have got to be joking, Dean! There is no sin of omission? Is following Christ only about correcting others? How about giving a drink to a thirsty man? How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus? How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate? Can you please God by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst. Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on? I would never do that and neither would
you.Terry cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this manner is clouding the true message of the Gospel-If we are living in the 11 commandments given to us then there is no sin of omission for to have love of the brethren we will be helping them-by correction their error(s) ,and giving to them for their needs-then there is on sin of omission.Ifnot- feel free to point out those other sins of
omission?

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser






On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:34:14 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1. Where does it say that man is to be stoned for having sex with a 
  single woman or a prostitute? 
  
  Who said anything about single or prostitute? The 
  woman was committing adultery which means she
  was married or else she was carrying on with a 
  married man, either way both were to be stoned.
  
  2.. How do you know that the man was not stoned? 
  
  They were to stone both, and they came to Jesus 
  asking for some kind of an OK, so why would they
  bring just one of them?
  
  3. Who are you accusing in the subject line above? 
  
  What does it say JD?
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

What on earth are you talking about JD? I 
understand that Jesus was teaching at the Mt. of Olives and it 
was
early in the morning. There were ppl there 
listening to him teach -does it matter how many?. The 
Scribes
and Pharisees (the ones Jn the Baptist called a 
generation of vipers in Matt 3:7) brought a woman to him
sayingthey had caught her committing 
adultery, right in the act - then they reminded him of the Law and asked 

what he wantedto 
do with her. The Law (Lev 20:10) states clearly that both man and 
woman are to be stoned.
Since you are so keyed in to what you call 
"ontological truth" - what was their game? No mental gymnastics 
here JD -No desire to add or take away one 
jot or tittle. Lets see a little of your theological expertise in action 
 
Were they trying to get 
him to OK stoning just one of them? Whatever it was they were setting 
Him up to 
accuse Him. I'm glad Hewas not on TT. Don't need any setup to be accused 
here.


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:28:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact 
  is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. 
  Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am 
  sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes 
  any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in 
  possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such 
  as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- 
  except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone 
else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus 
was speaking to were going to stone the 
adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said 
they were both to be stoned. As for 
TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism 
itself is considered to be a cult by 
Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem? Does 
speaking the truth to you make the messenger 
your enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't 
  have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, 
  nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both 
  know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is 
  apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the 
  opponentisthe enemy. 
  
  When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the 
  .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin 
  at any given momenton some level ...but the 
  sinless 
  perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees 
  (when it is so obvious otherwise.)
  
  jd
  
  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's 
religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I 
offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without 
intention. It just came off the top of my head. 
Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs 
are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done 
just that. 
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone 
who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street 
preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. 
And, the same for those who 
more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred 
symbols on TT. And 
the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a 
lower-case letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh? 
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard 
Time,

*Moderator Comment Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

2005-12-15 Thread Charles Perry Locke

John and Kevin, stop the name calling. Go private if you wish to continue.

From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:05:32 -0800 (PST)

   if you still have that one tooth.

  Discussions with you always devolve into questions of whether your gut 
hangs below your belt still.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have turned the flapping of the gums into a vocation,  Kevin.  
This is not completely true, however, if you still have that one tooth.

  I suspect that Terry is a full-time Christian.  I met your challenge and 
what did we get for that  --  yet another challenge of someone else. You 
are a lazy Christian, Kevin, doing those things that so often do not count 
for much but take a considerable amount of time.nothing to be 
proud of.

  You get no more tired of the senseless than do the rest of us.

  jd

  -- Original message --
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.
  When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT DEEDS!

  It is a False Piety to say that another should do such  such when one 
does NOTHING.

  God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE
  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being 
abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate..

  They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when pressed they do not 
want to brag

  Invariably when preaching in public, some christian comes up to me and 
says you are doing it wrong you are going to turn them off. (If I had a 
nickel for every time...)

  I ask them How many people have you told about Jesus this week?
  They want to change subjects, any idea why? Guess they want their 
reward.

  Why would someone correct someone else about something they DO NOT DO?
  Only reason could be, their conscience is bothering them.
  They know it is RIGHT to witness to the LOST

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your post a couple of times.   My comments appear to be 
appropriate.

  -- Original message --
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  A rather simple task is to read the post instead of going off half 
cocked

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what does your   little chuck and jive 
have to do with Terry's remarks to Dean?  Not one single thing.   Few on 
this site have a clue as to ad hom.  but your comments below are ad 
hom.   By definition, ad hom is any statement that does not go directly to 
the  discussion or remarks at hand.   Another phrase for ad hom is 
begging the question.   Truth regarding ad hom has NOTHING TO DO WITH 
AD HOM.   This is just something you all made up.If the response is 
an atack on any other issue but the one present,  it is begging the 
question and is ad hom.

  You have this fantasy that you are busier doing the Lord's work than 
anyone else.   A ridiculous  assertion or two levels  (busier  and 
Lord's work)..   You are constantly demanding that those who offer a 
criticisim measure up to YOU..
  Get a life and stay on subject   ---   or maybe you just cannot do this 
rather simple task.

  jd

  -- Original message --
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  You have got to be joking, Dean!  There is no sin of omission?  Is 
following Christ only about correcting others?  How about giving a drink to 
a thirsty man?

  AND how do you do such?

  I find that most that speak like this are DOing nothing of consequence. 
They love in WORD but never in DEED!

  It tends to be a device to soothe their conscience.
  The bible speaks of it this way.
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in 
deed and in truth.

  Talk is cheap it does not cost a thing!

  As a proponent of PURE RELIGION
  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit 
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself 
unspotted from the world.

  What are you DOing? Tell us of your DEEDS.
  Looking foward to your TESTIMONY!   PTL!

Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Dean Moore wrote:
  You have got to be joking, Dean!  There is no sin of omission?  Is 
following Christ only about correcting others?  How about giving a drink to 
a thirsty man?  How about passing by the wounded on the road to Damascus?  
How about the guy broke down alongside the interstate?  Can you please God 
by telling the thirsty guy he needs to be saved and leave him in thirst.  
Can you hand a tract to the guy broke down miles from nowhere and go on?  I 
would never do that and neither would you.

Terry

cd: There is a difference in pointing out error and stoning someone to 
death.We can call sin ,sin and are told to do so in the bible. Abstaining 
from original sin keeps one from being a hypocrite as you are trying to 
make Judy appear. Adding sin of omission in this

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally..

2005-12-15 Thread ttxpress




myth 
(noProtestant here'sthat stupid--you are really arrogant, 
M'am! E.g., like JC himself, acc to their writing, Protestants Calvin 
Lutherthemselves dismisstheir readersfrom everything contrary 
tofaith in God's word, in their case,inc their own 
folly;unlike their historic detractors, Protestants 'camp' around 
historic biblical theology 
whereever,likecontinually filtering the wheat of JCfrom 
thechaff/s of (even American) history)

||

  
  On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:57:31 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  

But why camp around their 
error?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross





Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Well TerryI am not going to stoop to using the words real
stupid. That is good, Kevin. You should only use that word when
it is appropriate.
  



  Why have you become so emotional? 

You might be imagining things.again. I was not aware
that I had become at all emotional.

  
  
  Offi'cious
is a new word for me, but I like it. It does the job, maybe
even better than gossip.



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you meantalebearer as the word gossip does not appear
  
  Gossip n One who runs from house to house,
tattling and telling news; an idle tattler.
  
  TA'LEBEARER, n. [tale and bear.] A person who
officiously tells tales; one who impertinently communicates
intelligence or anecdotes, and makes mischief in society by his
officiousness.
  
  OFFI'CIOUS a. Busy; intermeddling in
affairs in which one has no concern.
  
  
  Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  I
am really sick of real stupid people who ASSUME to have facts they do
not have. I believe the Bible refers to them as gossips.
Terry

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  NAW I am just sick of people that flap their gums.
  When it comes down to it they are all about words NOT
DEEDS!
  
  It is a False Piety to saythat another should do such
 such when one doesNOTHING.
  
  God's Work as you put it is NOT LIP SERVICE
  They profess that they
know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and
disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate..
  
  They profess to be doing the WORK of God but when
pressed they do not want to brag
  

  


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

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser




-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:34:14 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

1. Where does it say that man is to be stoned for having sex with a single woman or a prostitute? 

Who said anything about single or prostitute? The woman was committing adultery which means she
was married or else she was carrying on with a married man, either way both were to be stoned. 

How do you get that either were married? 

2.. How do you know that the man was not stoned? 

They were to stone both, and they came to Jesus asking for some kind of an OK, so why would they
bring just one of them?

Why am I not allowed to speculate -- ala Judy --- that the man was already stoned or that he would be dealt with at a later time? 

3. Who are you accusing in the subject line above? 

What does it say JD? TruthTalk ??!!

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

What on earth are you talking about JD? I understand that Jesus was teaching at the Mt. of Olives and it was
early in the morning. There were ppl there listening to him teach -does it matter how many?. The Scribes
and Pharisees (the ones Jn the Baptist called a generation of vipers in Matt 3:7) brought a woman to him
sayingthey had caught her committing adultery, right in the act - then they reminded him of the Law and asked 
what he wantedto do with her. The Law (Lev 20:10) states clearly that both man and woman are to be stoned.
Since you are so keyed in to what you call "ontological truth" - what was their game? No mental gymnastics 
here JD -No desire to add or take away one jot or tittle. Lets see a little of your theological expertise in action  
Were they trying to get him to OK stoning just one of them? Whatever it was they were setting Him up to 
accuse Him. I'm glad Hewas not on TT. Don't need any setup to be accused here.


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:28:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman -- but others, I am sure , were not going to participate. But none of that makes any difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. jd
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was speaking to were going to stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the truth to you make the messenger your enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the opponentisthe enemy. 

When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given momenton some level ...but the sinless 
perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when it is so obvious otherwise.)

jd

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done just that. 
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh? 
Blainerb

In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or relevant. 

and this statementborders on insulting:  
One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :)
Blainerb


I have to say something here -- both of you have made it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that your stay here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for crossing over. Well,

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser






On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:01:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1. Where does it say that man is to be stoned for having sex with a 
  single woman or a prostitute? 
  

  
  Who said anything about single or prostitute? The 
  woman was committing adultery which means she
  was married or else she was carrying on with a 
  married man, either way both were to be stoned. 
  
  How do you get that either were 
  married? 
  
  If there was no marriage involved then it 
  would have been fornication.
  
  2.. How do you know that the man was not stoned? 
  
  They were to stone both, and they came to Jesus 
  asking for some kind of an OK, so why would they
  bring just one of them?
  
  Why am I not allowed to speculate -- ala 
  Judy --- that the man was already stoned or that he would be dealt 
  with at a later time? 
  
  Why would you want to add your own 
  speculation to what is written?
  
  3. Who are you accusing in the subject line above? 
  
  What does it say JD? TruthTalk ??!!
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

What on earth are you talking about JD? I 
understand that Jesus was teaching at the Mt. of Olives and it 
was
early in the morning. There were ppl there 
listening to him teach -does it matter how many?. The 
Scribes
and Pharisees (the ones Jn the Baptist called a 
generation of vipers in Matt 3:7) brought a woman to him
sayingthey had caught her committing 
adultery, right in the act - then they reminded him of the Law and asked 

what he 
wantedto do with her. The Law (Lev 20:10) states clearly 
that both man and woman are to be stoned.
Since you are so keyed in to what you call 
"ontological truth" - what was their game? No mental gymnastics 
here JD -No desire to add or take away 
one jot or tittle. Lets see a little of your theological expertise in 
action  
Were they trying to 
get him to OK stoning just one of them? Whatever it was they were 
setting Him up to 
accuse Him. I'm glad Hewas not on TT. Don't need any setup to be accused 
here.


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:28:10 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  mental gymnastics will get you nowhere, Judy. The 
  fact is, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE standing 
  there. Some of them wanted to stone the woman 
  -- but others, I am sure , were not going to 
  participate. But none of that makes any 
  difference. Jesus knows that they are all sinners and in 
  possession of sin -- so He can make a general challenge, 
  such as He did, knowing that the challenge will not be rebutted 
  -- except, of course, 2000 years later by Judy Taylor. 
  jd
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or 
anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The 
men Jesus was speaking to were going to 
stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and 
the Law said they were both to be 
stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs 
are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream 
Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the 
truth to you make the messenger your 
enemy?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you 
  didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is 
  appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I 
  think we both know the rest of the story. You are 
  right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long 
  as one thinks the opponentisthe 
  enemy. 
  
  When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the 
  .," it is clear the He believed that all possess 
  sin at any given momenton some level 
  ...but the sinless 
  
  perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees 
  (when it is so obvious otherwise.)
  
  jd
  
  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's 
religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I 
offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without 
intention. It

Re: [TruthTalk] The Accuser

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:01:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

1. Where does it say that man is to be stoned for having sex with a single woman or a prostitute?

Who said anything about single or prostitute? The woman was committing adultery which means she
was married or else she was carrying on with a married man, either way both were to be stoned.

How do you get that either were married?

If there was no marriage involved then it would have been fornication.

And how do you know that. Nothing in the text that tells you this nothing. Unless, of course, you are about to tell me that you have gone outside the word of God to find your answer? Is this what you are about to tell me.
2.. How do you know that the man was not stoned?

They were to stone both, and they came to Jesus asking for some kind of an OK, so why would they
bring just one of them?

Why am I not allowed to speculate -- ala Judy --- that the man was already stoned or that he would be dealt with at a later time?

Why would you want to add your own speculation to what is written?

What is written? Really. And where do you findin "what is written" that they were not going to punish the man ?? You have your speculation and I have mine. What is not speculation is this: "You who have no sin cast the first stone." Ask your pastor what he thinks. Don't give him any hints -- just ask him. You and I both know what he will tell you.

3. Who are you accusing in the subject line above?

What does it say JD? TruthTalk ??!!

Re: [TruthTalk] thinking out loud