date:20060324

IMO God privileges the ear. We all have the capacity to hear well Also, the 
tacit dimension of knowing comes in to play here.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Interesting.  I think I hear much, much better than I articulate.  In 
fact,

I'm sure of it.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

David:You articulate well. You apprehend, IMO, less well. You write like a
'neat freak'.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 14:58
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

I'm not a good communicator, Lance.  I have been convinced of this, and I
become more convinced the older I get.  I try really hard, but I am
frequently misunderstood.  Nothing I have tried can cure this.  It is a
thorn in my side that only grace enables me to endure.  It constantly
humbles me to realize how bad I am at communicating.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

I do know this Iz, that my friends and I have puzzled more over David 
than
anyone on TT over the years. We don't know if he WON'T or CAN'T see.(I 
opt

for won't.)
- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 14:46
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Yes, it's always the fault of the communicator (whenever attempting to
communicate with you-know-who.) iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:30 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

It just might be the case that YOU are not as good a communicater as YOU
believe yourself to be, David. Ah well, David, soon a long rest from TT
and,

onto things more important!
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 13:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Lance wrote:

As to mantras David, yours 'I have only
the truth and, all of the truth all of the time
is neither borne out by Scripture nor reality.

This is not my mantra.  We have a communication problem here.  I do not
believe that I have only the truth or all of the truth all of the time.
I
don't believe that is true about anybody.

David Miller
Too tired with being misunderstood to continue...

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

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have 
a

friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Just how wide do you wish the door open, scientifically speaking? This issue 
is akin to the 'prayer in school' issue. (Goose  gander thingy)

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just 
think

it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it 
then,

I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
Williams
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to 
you

and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to 
be

separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The 
moniker

was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in 
Christ,

then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
very
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
not
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
Rowland
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

I thought not but, thanks for the candid confirmation.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 17:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

Lance wrote:

Would you apply the word 'bias' equally
to yourself and, to Judy with the same force?

No, I would not.

I have a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person
has the establishment behind him.  The establishment makes people a little
lazy in their thinking.  Me, I have to be right if I'm disagreeing with 
the

establishment.  They only have to tote the party line, and that reinforces
their bias.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

David:Would you apply the word 'bias' equally to yourself and, to Judy 
with

the same force?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

I talked to Carl once on the telephone.  He was kind enough to return my
phone call.  The problem is that he made some huge mistakes in regards to
the Paluxy River beds and it greatly hurt the evidence that might 
actually

be there for a recent creation.  The evolutionists were all over his
mistake
and have discounted his entire work because of it.  The jury is still 
open

for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias of scientists first
hand.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

DAVEH:   Note to DavidM and other TTers.  For the first time, I just
watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN (Thursday nights) program about
science and the Bible.  How do you folks perceive him?

--
~~~
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.

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

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

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

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

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

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Either that or, you are a TOTALLY IGNORANT BAPTIST.
I've made MY choice, Kevin.

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North?

"if ever a continent of
covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination),
the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added)
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be
to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to
submit...must be denied citizenship".

Reformed Baptist? LOL
Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
Baptist DominionISM? LOL
Baptist Pope ROTFL

RC Pope Calvin
Reformed Presbyterian
Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery,
Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance!

Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty or
religious liberty
# 7 The Separation of Church and State

Try to get your baseless assertions straight:
Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery

Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htm

PROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible SWORD
http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpg

For all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the
sword?

Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC
http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/

Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants
Potentates!!!

Again all the ammo you have is Psycho assertionISM!
Name smearing and grossly misrepresenting peoples beliefs.
These REFORMED Catholics are just like their Papa
Baptists do not preach this baloney never have.
Popes Protestants and Potentates have blood on their hands.
Most times it was the blood of Baptists
You defame their pure blood, shed by murderous RC's
Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain
among you

RJ Rushdooney
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm
The Royal Race of the
Redeemed?
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you
finally come out of hiding after the Y2K fiasco? I do believe that were we
to remove the hoods from some on TT we would see that which underlies the
hatred that you spread throughout the mid-east and, elsewhere.

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism

AGAIN you show your Short Comprehension
I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC.
wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a
consensus

What do you know of RJR?
Not as much as you think, I suppose.
He is NOT a Fundamentalist
Like Papa like son, bring out the stake
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Spoken like a true studen of
RJR.

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

Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ;
)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious
people!!! Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for
every major school system
I am sure we can find enough fundy
ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea
what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy.
CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE
YOU FREE !!

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

I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful
or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' 
it all that well AT TT!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 18:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR 
  JOB 
  
  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto 
Cesear
  
  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? 
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a 
"big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient 
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there 
has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's 
wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not 
need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and 
our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving 
that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
-- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
--- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
  "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
  scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
  would you want to warp young minds with useless 
  information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
  systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
  Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
  major school system  I am 
  sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
  would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
  slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
  happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
  SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything 
and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful 
or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
  
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
  -- HUH ???
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole 
church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What 
does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
  upon by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary 
process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a 
fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 

ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Both your presuppositions and your deductions are 
available to be seen. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 19:07
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  So I prefer the concept of believing in fundamental Christianity 
  but not believing in fundamentalism.And that is whileI 
  prefer to believe the Special Revelation of God himself, I do not have a POPE 
  or Potentate or Presbytery. 
  I simply believe the revelation in the Book. JN 17:17 
  "Thy word IS Truth"
  That is my presupposition I Deduce all my beliefs from there.
  
  Holy Spirit testifies of Christ
  John 15:26-27 [26]"When the 
  Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth 
  who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me
  
  The Word testifies of Christ
  JN 5:39, 46 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have 
  eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me." 
  "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for 
  he wrote about me"
  
  "To the law and to the testimony; if 
they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in 
them."Isaiah 8:20.
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  To 
believe fundamental Christianity means to accept fundamental tenets of 
Christianity. To believe fundamentalism means to embrace a sect of 
Christianity which hammers on the fundamentals. What if that "ism" sect 
said that only the KJV was inspired, or that believers need to sell all, 
forsake possessions, and live in communes like the early believers did, 
or that anyone who did not speak in tongues and heal the sick were not 
living in the same faith as the early believers? I could go on and on. 
The problem with believing in any "ism" is that if error creeps into the 
"ism" sect at all, it infects the whole group. So I prefer the concept 
of believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in 
fundamentalism.David Miller- Original Message - 
From: Kevin DeeganTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:31 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on CreationismThen maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of 
us.I am sure Lance can not/will notI am sure we can see the 
difference, but just what are the symptoms of that particular 
ISM?David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Lance wrote: 
Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... FundamentalISM ought not 
be believed by anyone.FWIW: I can appreciate this 
distinction Lance makes.David Miller--"Let your 
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this 
list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be 
unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an 
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be 
  subscribed.
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh




Ah David, is YOUR BIAS GOD'S 
BIAS?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 19:38
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh
  
  Hear that, Judy. Who would have believed you to be a party 
  girl.-- jd
  
  Lance wrote: Would you apply the word 'bias' equally to 
  yourself and, to Judy with the same force?No, I would not.I 
  have a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person 
  has the establishment behind him. The establishment makes people a 
  little lazy in their thinking. Me, I have to be right if I'm 
  disagreeing with the establishment. They only have to tote the party 
  line, and that reinforces their bias.David Miller
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   Would you 
apply the word 'bias' equally   to yourself and, to Judy with 
the same force?   No, I would not.   I have 
a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person  
has the establishment behind him. The establishment makes people a little 
 lazy in their thinking. Me, I have to be right if I'm disagreeing 
with the  establishment. They only have to tote the party line, and 
that reinforces  their bias.   David Miller  
 - Original Message -  From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:35 PM  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Carl BaughDavid:Would you apply the word 'bias' 
equally to yourself and, to Judy with  the same force?  
- Original Message -  From: "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  Sent: 
March 23, 2006 15:08  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh  
  I talked to Carl once on the telephone. He was kind 
enough to return my   phone call. The problem is that he made 
some huge mistakes in regards to   the Paluxy River beds and it 
greatly hurt the evidence that might actually   be there for a 
recent creation. The evolutionists were all over his   mistake 
  and have discounted his entire work because of it. The jury is 
still open   for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias 
of scientists first   hand. David 
Miller   - Original Message 
-   From: "Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
"Truth Talk"   Sent: Monday, March 
20, 2006 11:31 PM   Subject: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh  
 DAVEH: Note to DavidM and other TTers. For 
the first time, I just   watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN 
(Thursday nights) program about   science and the Bible. How do 
you folks perceive him? --   
~~~   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.   
--   "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.or g If you do not want 
to receive posts from this list, send an email to   
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
  friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.  
 --   "Let your speech 
be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may   know 
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)   
http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to 
receive posts from this list, send an email to   
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
  friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.  
--  "Let your speech be 
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know  how you 
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)  
http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive 
posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a  friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.--  "Let 
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
 you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive 
posts from this list, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  
he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Gettin' better and better! Why did you save the 
best for last?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:41
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than 
  evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation 
  creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation 
  and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed 
  BACK into the general population. Evenan old earth 
  belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution 
  to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And 
  theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God 
  manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - 
  yes. Macro - no. 

  I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the 
  eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary 
  particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a 
  radical andatheistic biology prof. These were some of 
  the points I gave them. They used them in class.They  semed 
  to work. 

  Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our 
  schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of 
  creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a 
  knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- 
  isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT 
  science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a 
  concept could be implemented. 

  jd

  -- 
Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  If you thought it was true would 
you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?  izzy   
-Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism   David:Is that all you were meaning to say 
concerning RW? If that's it then,  I'm with RW on this one. I don't 
think it should be taught in schools  either.   
 - Original Message -  From: "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  Sent: 
March 23, 2006 15:04  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creation ism The CNN report: Asked if 
creationism should be taught in schools,   Williams  
 said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no."   
  So how have I mischaracterized him?
 David Miller   - Original 
Message -   From: "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
10:41 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize 
both Williams and his position. DOUBLE   YIKES!! I know that you 
will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,   David. You've 
bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,   
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you 
  and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be 
tri ple   yikes)   - Original Message - 
  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  
 Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 
'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm 
sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be 
  separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who 
have   submitted   unto Jesus Christ as 
their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes  
 differently than you on some matters.   
Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes 
you what I say.   g t;  He is not a liberal 
loony for believing differently from me. The moniker   was 
offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  
 Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, 
  assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a 
brother in Christ,   then I expect to hear a retraction or 
clarification made soon as other   believers correct him. If 
he is not a brother in Christ, then he will   continue to 
support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the   
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was 
  very   damaging to our society, to 
believers who want to acknowledge God the   Creator in their 
study of origins. To think that science and the   
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but 
  not   from theologians, and certainly not 
from

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




I'm humbled at your objectivity, Kevin. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:36
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Christian roots of our public education 
  system
  
  No but I do know about the Lefty Fruits of our public 
  education, it is not about education. it is all about 
  Indoctrination.
  Government school Education is one of the promises 
  ofthe Communist Manifesto 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent 
  to public purpose. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), 
  and various zoning, school  property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land 
  Management. 2. A heavy progressive 
  or graduated income tax. Misapplication of the 16th 
  Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; 
  Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call 
  it "paying your fair share". 3. 
  Abolition of all rights of inheritance. We call it 
  Federal  State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited 
  inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and 
  rebels. We call in government seizures, tax liens, 
  Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which 
  gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of 
  "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 
  Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due 
  process. Police confiscation and Court ordered political 
  fines.5. Centralization of credit 
  in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and 
  an exclusive monopoly. We call it the Federal 
  Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal 
  Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are 
  regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 
  6. Centralization of the means of 
  communication and transportation in the hands of the State. We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department 
  of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions 
  Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The 
  Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and 
  Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and 
  Department of Transportation regulations. 7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the 
  State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of 
  the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The 
  Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
  Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land 
  Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and 
  the IRS control of business through corporate regulations. 8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of 
  Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. We 
  call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The 
  National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need 
  for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920s, the 19th 
  amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted 
  Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of 
  course Executive order 11000. 9. 
  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of 
  the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the 
  population over the country. We call it the 
  Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super 
  Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and 
  Public "law" 89-136. 10. Free 
  education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's 
  factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial 
  production, etc. etc. People are being taxed to 
  support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the 
  communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and 
  Outcome Based "Education".ShieldsFamily 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  








Im so thankful 
that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the 
Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about 
Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught 
anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public 
education system (before the lefties took over?) 
izzy





From:

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The archbishop + nothing = first rate 
teaching.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 24, 2006 00:01
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my 
  posts? 

  Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for 
  community andan  innate longing 
  to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a 
  statement of science, we lessen its value to the human 
  spirit. 

  What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That 
  God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control 
  - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my 
  creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He 
  continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was 
  created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which 
  I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my 
  actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible 
  !! I and my wife are one 
  becauseGodthought this to be the case from the 
  beginning. and REST has as 
  much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what 
  I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see 
  a debate  

  Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an 
  older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the 
  bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at 
  times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge 
  him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is 
  to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right 
  again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the 
  challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he 
  is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. 
  Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys 
  - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free 
  advice. 

  The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible 
  THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! 
  Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the 
  Christ of God and you have a winner. 

  jd

  jd

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

My goodness, jd. 
What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the 
sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and 
I am no atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I 
said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 
seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow 
lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that 
"day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is 
metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the 
world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to 
me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe 
the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , 
today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked 
so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to 
rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, 
this is impossible. 

jd

  -- Original message -- 
  From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Are you mocking the concept that God created the 
  world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for 
  him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come 
  into being? I don't understand your 
  point.

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of 
creation do you support. That A  E were spirit 
people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" 
e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to 
speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! 
including a drink of

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Iz:I totally concur. That is why Judy and yourself are so frequently in sinc 
with David.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 22:59
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Lance, I believe it is not David who don't/won't see, but those who
criticize him who are wearing the blinders.  He communicates perfectly 
well

with those who are of the same Spirit. izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:59 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

I'm not a good communicator, Lance.  I have been convinced of this, and I
become more convinced the older I get.  I try really hard, but I am
frequently misunderstood.  Nothing I have tried can cure this.  It is a
thorn in my side that only grace enables me to endure.  It constantly
humbles me to realize how bad I am at communicating.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

I do know this Iz, that my friends and I have puzzled more over David than
anyone on TT over the years. We don't know if he WON'T or CAN'T see.(I opt
for won't.)
- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 14:46
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Yes, it's always the fault of the communicator (whenever attempting to
communicate with you-know-who.) iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:30 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

It just might be the case that YOU are not as good a communicater as YOU
believe yourself to be, David. Ah well, David, soon a long rest from TT
and,

onto things more important!
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 13:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Lance wrote:

As to mantras David, yours 'I have only
the truth and, all of the truth all of the time
is neither borne out by Scripture nor reality.

This is not my mantra.  We have a communication problem here.  I do not
believe that I have only the truth or all of the truth all of the time.
I
don't believe that is true about anybody.

David Miller
Too tired with being misunderstood to continue...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

If you do not want to

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Still no.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?
izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it 
then,

I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
Williams
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to 
you

and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to 
be

separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The 
moniker

was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in 
Christ,

then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
very
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
not
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
Rowland
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

Sorry David but, here's another pat on the back 
from Iz to offset my remark. Better now?

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:06
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, 
  Promises etc

  Lance, It seems that 
  you are insecure that DM 
  received a genuine pat on the back, and then was straightforward enough to say 
  he appreciated a kind word. (Not a good thingy.) 
  iz

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, 
  Promises etc

  David:Are you that 
  insecure?

- Original Message - 

From: David Miller 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 
23, 2006 15:09

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

Thank you, Judy, for being perceptive and 
understanding me.

David 
Miller

  - Original Message - 

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: 
  Monday, March 20, 2006 10:35 AM

  Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

  Then I suggest that those of you 
  who are titillated by this kind of thing take G with you 
  and

  form your own List because this is 
  not only rude it is divisive and sectarian - Oh thou 
  discerner

  of sects  DM does not do 
  this. He works hard to try and communicate with others 
  wherever

  they are at -This is 
  preferring one's brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to 
  some.

  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

It should be obvious why G does this. 

It is to some of us. 

jd

  From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Hey 
  Iz; you and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say 
  about ppl

  who 
  like to dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note 
  none of these are 
  questions

  they are all answers. 
  What was the question?

  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

..e.g., 
"Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how" means 
thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never 
could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, 
quiteinterestingly, 
apprehending 
him)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ..the 
  difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, 
  his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is 
  suspect

  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

..in 
her psyche, 
the writer already knows the notion is 
suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  myth 
  (note the 
  quotes)

  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 
  "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

.. 
apprehend Christ..
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

You may feel to teach them that the universe is 
geocentric if you like. 

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  Im so thankful that 
  my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! 
  Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at 
  home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do 
  you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system 
  (before the lefties took over?) izzy

  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Kevin 
  DeeganSent: Thursday, March 
  23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE 
  DOING OUR JOB 

  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render 
  unto Cesear

  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain 
silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is 
ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion 
that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's 
wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
exist. But, now, it is I who 
digresses.

My point? If the church had not 
surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
system, we would not need this discussion. The 
church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to 
atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL 
SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN 
MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just 
talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually 
spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day 
was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

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

  Why advocate teaching what you 
  don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we 
  prove

  evolution do we need to concern 
  ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence 
  that

  this level of proof has not been 
  achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned

  Darwinism because they became 
  convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So 
  why

  would you want to warp young minds 
  with useless information that is not proven? 
  judyt

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions 
  in the school systemsand you are talking about religious 
  people!!! Amazing

  Maybe we should install a different 
  creationist version for every major school system 
   I am sure we can find enough fundy 
  ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
  worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea 
  what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS 
  BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE 
  !! jd

From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as 
much JD; my point being that religious ppl have 
many

and varied 
points of view about anything and everything and this is 
no

measure by 
which to gauge what is needful or 
true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is 
  about, Judy? 

  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE 
  CIRRICULUM -- HUH 
  ???

From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?

There isn't 
a single view of the whole church that is agreed 
upon

by the 
whole church either. What does that prove? 
judyt

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

Like the storm thingy, the twin tower thingy, the 
arabs-in-general thingy...etc.

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:17
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  I was once 
  interviewed on Pat Robertsons TV program, and have a lot of respect for 
  him. But I do wonder why he says something that is absolutely true and 
  then apologizes for it later. izzy

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David MillerSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:55 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  I know many scientists who are Christians and hold to 
  theistic evolution. That does not mean that they bring that view in when 
  they practice science. They are not allowed and they will be the first 
  to tell you.

  I don't see myself as a fundamentalist, but I'm not 
  going to fight with those who characterize me as 
  such.

  I like Pat Robertson. He is not a dufus from my 
  perspective.

  I do not favor the idea of forcing the teaching of 
  creation in schools. I am against the notion of forbidding teachers from 
  dealing with this subject matter. I'm against theidea of it being 
  illegal to teach creationscience in schools.I have known 
  many high school teachers that would not have the problem that you outline 
  below.

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] on Creationism

Daivd, I have several books on my 
shelves written by Christian scientists proclaiming some version of theistic 
evolution.

Secondly,you and are both members 
of the fundamentalist community. If you have missed the M.O. of 
any number of our brethren, I haven't.  

Look at Pat Robertson. A Dufus of major 
proportions. He has his foot in his mouth so often they 
now measure that cavity in terms of shoe size 
!!

The cause of Christ would 
becomeeven more difficult if we allowed this to 
happen.  At least the way it is now, we 
(the Christian community) can somewhat hide these guys from 
society. The KKK was made up of mostly Christian 
claiming people. 

Can you imagine? "OK, 
students,we have just completedour study on 
evolution from a scientific point of view. Now , we enter into 
the Christian notion of creation -- or should I say the 
several versions of same !! (and the teacher smiles.) We only 
had space in the text book for five such theories. I personally do not 
believe any of them -- and I need to make that clear to 
you before "they" pass some law that says I cannot influence your thinking 
with such a statement -- but I will do the best I 
can.Before I begin, how many of you care about any 
of this... show of hands, please 
. I said "show of " . 
oh, I get get it. Well , we have to consider each of these 
accounts of creation, anyway, and there will be a test. I 
must say, it seems a bit odd for me. I mean, I wil l be making a 
presentation of a biblical nature, but , of course, we are not 
permitted to present from the Bible -- so I really do not know 
why this is not being done in church .. but here 
goes 
..."

jd

  -- Original message -- 
  From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  I really do not understand how it is that you 
  think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in 
  schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken 
  the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. 
  Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by 
  science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in 
  schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this 
  fact?

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] on Creationism

With much debate, the Fundies destroy any 
opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the 
reason stated below. Amen.

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

It does.

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:14
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  It is also absurd 
  that someone who claims to believe that all truth comes from God would not 
  consider that all true science does the same. 
  izzy

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David MillerSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:46 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  Supply all the names of real scientists that you like, 
  Lance. It does not change the facts about the position of the scientific 
  establishment. I'm talking about organizations like theNational 
  Academy of Sciences. They make a big legal case concerning 
  howcreation science is religion and therefore it is ILLEGAL to teach it 
  in public schools. Any mention of a Creator makes it RELIGION instead of 
  SCIENCE. Their position is that science and religion occupytwo 
  separate realms of human experience. They accept the fact thatmany 
  scientists are deeply religious, but they insist that the two cannot be 
  combined. Therefore,any mention of a Creator in science is 
  forbidden. 

  I reject the notion that science and religion do not 
  overlap.

  By the way, the NAS also makes bigmention of how 
  most religious groups have concluded that evolution is not at odds with their 
  descriptions of creation and human origins. In other words,the 
  scientific establishmentloves guys like R. Williams who help them keep 
  the acknowledgement of God out of the 
  classroom.

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: Lance 
Muir 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:30 PM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] on Creationism

David says that 'the scientific 
establishment has...'. Look, David, if the generalization works for you 
then, OK! I already told you that I'd supply the names of real, as opposed 
to pretend, scientists, who are themselves believers (I supplied a couple of 
names) who hold to a variety of positions on this matter. 

  - Original Message - 

  From: David Miller 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 
  23, 2006 14:20

  Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] on Creationism

  I really do not understand how it is that you 
  think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in 
  schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken 
  the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. 
  Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by 
  science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in 
  schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this 
  fact?

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] on Creationism

With much debate, the Fundies destroy any 
opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the 
reason stated below. Amen. 

And, again, a foot in the door would only 
allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational 
institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming 
at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for 
the Right Side.  Scary. 

jd

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

  There are as many 
  'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the 
  keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've 
  already come up with. I rest my case your 
  honor.

- Original Message 
- 

From: 
Judy Taylor 

To: 
truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
March 23, 2006 06:44

Subject: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism

Why advocate 
teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted 
"Only when

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

A book truly perceptive re: human 
nature.

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:12
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  Why is this so 
  hauntingly reminiscent of communication between Screwtape and Wormwood? 
  iz

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:40 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  You have risen to new heights, 
  soon to be appointed ARCHbishop, John.

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 
23, 2006 16:36

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the 
sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and 
I am no atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I 
said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 
seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow 
lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that 
"day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is 
metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the 
world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to 
me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe 
the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , 
today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked 
so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to 
rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, 
this is impossible. 

jd

  -- Original message -- 
  From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Are you mocking the concept that God created the 
  world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for 
  him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come 
  into being? I don't understand your 
  point.

  David 
  Miller

- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of 
creation do you support. That A  E were spirit 
people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" 
e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to 
speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! 
including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! 
Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version 
goes into the school system ??? We are still 
waiting??

jd

  -- Original message -- 
  From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Don't you get it 
  JT?

  TRUTH is found in 
  CONSENSUS!

  The opinions of Men are the 
  key.Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

So?

There isn't a 
single fiew of the whole church that is agreed 
upon

by the whole 
church either. What does that prove? 
judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 

  there isn't a single view of creationism 
  that is agreed upon by the whole church. 

  jd

-- Original message 
-- From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

John 
wrote:

 The world in which we live would 
reject 

 any mention of God in the

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that which 
one has just witnessed over the last week or so.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.
  
  I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for 
  what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses 
  to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for 
  the land and water to do what he said.He also may have been 
  involved in other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it 
  differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next 
  day.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you 
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 


Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of 
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually 
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of 
my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical 
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in 
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an 
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to 
be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look 
-- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation 
activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up 
!!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is 
impossible. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith 
  and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words 
  have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I 
  don't understand your point.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 
year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The 
version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that 
canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did 
it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water 
because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot 
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the 
school system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Don't you get it JT?
  TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
  The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole 
church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does 
that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
  know this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon 
  by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism




Censorship you say, David? TT just fired a censor? 
Christians can be no more trusted than anyone else. I'd not expect you to agree 
on this though in granting 'Senator' CDM a stint you illustrated my 
point.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 16:49
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  Let the teacher decide what is relevant. They don't teach all the 
  competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem? The problem 
  of censorship should concern you because the truth is not afraid of 
  evidence. You should be concerned whenever one side uses legal maneuvers 
  and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being heard.
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

And who is going to present these competing versions of creation 
-- the average Joe school teacher ?? Do you have any 
idea what an antagonist educator would do with such 
information? Actually, this "creationism in the school" 
thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !! 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where 
  Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody 
  Home? Think, McFly, Think."
  
  To further elucidate my point:having numerous creationist 
  models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our educational 
  system. There are numerous models of evolution as well. The 
  premise by which you think you can rest your case is 
  ratherelusive.
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal a 
candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that one 
over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms securely 
locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for 
assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped 
around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?'

David: You sound a little like Homer in 
your reply.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 10:59
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  Lance 
  wrote:
   There are as many 
  'species' of creationists as fish.
  
  The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your 
  point? 
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 
7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

There are as many 'species' of 
creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of 
computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already 
come up with. I rest my case your honor.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 
  06:44
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we 
  prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves 
  with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence 
  that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced 
  that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So 
  why
  would you want to warp young minds with 
  useless information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the 
  school systemsand you are talking about religious

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism




Keep this triadic structure in mind: God/World/Man. 
Reality/truth is the objective. If the foregoing is applicable to a scientific 
endeavour then, bring it with you. In 'reality' one cannot avoid 'reality' in 
pursuit of the truth..

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 16:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  I know many scientists who are Christians and hold to theistic 
  evolution. That does not mean that they bring that view in when they 
  practice science. They are not allowed and they will be the first to 
  tell you.
  
  I don't see myself as a fundamentalist, but I'm not going to fight with 
  those who characterize me as such.
  
  I like Pat Robertson. He is not a dufus from my perspective.
  
  I do not favor the idea of forcing the teaching of creation in 
  schools. I am against the notion of forbidding teachers from dealing 
  with this subject matter. I'm against theidea of it being illegal 
  to teach creationscience in schools.I have known many high 
  school teachers that would not have the problem that you outline below.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:20 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Daivd, I have several books on my shelves written by 
Christian scientists proclaiming some version of theistic 
evolution.

Secondly,you and are both members of the 
fundamentalist community. If you have missed the M.O. of any 
number of our brethren, I haven't.  

Look at Pat Robertson. A Dufus of major proportions. 
He has his foot in his mouth so often they now measure that 
cavity in terms of shoe size !!

The cause of Christ would becomeeven more difficult 
if we allowed this to happen.  At least the 
way it is now, we (the Christian community) can somewhat hide these 
guys from society. The KKK was made up of mostly 
Christian claiming people. 

Can you imagine? "OK, students,we have just 
completedour study on evolution from a scientific point of 
view. Now , we enter into the Christian notion of creation 
-- or should I say the several versions of same !! (and 
the teacher smiles.) We only had space in the text book for five such 
theories. I personally do not believe any of them -- and I 
need to make that clear to you before "they" pass some law that says I 
cannot influence your thinking with such a statement -- but I 
will do the best I can.Before I begin, how many of 
you care about any of this... show of hands, 
please . I said "show of " 
. oh, I get get it. Well , we have to consider each 
of these accounts of creation, anyway, and there will be a 
test. I must say, it seems a bit odd for me. I mean, I wil 
l be making a presentation of a biblical nature, but , of 
course, we are not permitted to present from the Bible -- 
so I really do not know why this is not being done in church 
.. but here goes 
..."


jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have 
  destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is 
  that the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention 
  of a Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic 
  evolution is flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not 
  hindering creationism in schools. Scientists are. Are you 
  really blind to this fact?
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 
10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place 
"creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated 
below. Amen. 

And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring 
hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run 
helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, 
at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. 
 Scary. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  There are as many 'species' of 
  creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the

[TruthTalk] Divine Contingent Order




When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former 
one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against 
the proverbial wall.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Facts stand the test better than Feelings.And as always the deeper things belong to UR MUTHA WEARS COMBAT BOOTSLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either that or, you are a TOTALLY IGNORANT BAPTIST. I've made MY choice, Kevin.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismIs KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders?
LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFLRC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance!Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty # 7 The Separation of Church and StateTry to get your baseless assertions straight: Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbyteryKindy garten 101 - Who
is who? Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htmPROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible SWORD http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpgFor all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the sword?Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants Potentates!!!Again all the ammo you have is Psycho assertionISM! Name smearing and
grossly misrepresenting peoples beliefs. These REFORMED Catholics are just like their Papa Baptists do not preach this baloney never have. Popes Protestants and Potentates have blood on their hands. Most times it was the blood of Baptists You defame their pure blood, shed by murderous RC's Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you RJ Rushdooney http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm The Royal Race of the Redeemed? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you finally come out of hiding after the Y2K fiasco? I do believe that were we to remove the hoods from some on TT we would see that which underlies the hatred that you spread throughout the mid-east and, elsewhere.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismAGAIN you show your Short Comprehension I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC. wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a consensusWhat do you know of RJR? Not as much as you think, I suppose. He is NOT a Fundamentalist Like Papa like son, bring out the stake Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spoken like a true studen of RJR.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ; )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing
Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!jd-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is
no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove?
judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller"

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' it all that well AT TT!- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent:
March 23, 2006 18:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismWE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto CesearUnless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! AmazingMaybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system . I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jdFrom: Judy
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From:
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would rejectany mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Couldthat not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests Godis somehow in control as the Creator(?) If thiscould be presented into the secular system ofeducation without it being coopted by the fundies-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a
shamethat radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forcesthe Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunityto introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.David MillerYahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-24 Thread Judy Taylor




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  
What do I believe about Genesis? 
Did you read any of my posts? 
Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for 
community andan  innate longing 
to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into 
a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human 
spirit. 

How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the 
author of TRUTH then?

What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That 
God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control 
- but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my 
creator. I am in His image. 

He is your Creator but you are not in His image 
unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. 
Your attitude to His Law would belie that.

And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round 
me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my 
wife, my children and the world in which I live.

The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all 
of the above? Where?

It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work 
is a curse because I must be responsible !!

Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of 
your thoughts as well as your actions.

I and my wife are one 
becauseGodthought this to be the case from the 
beginning. and REST has as 
much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's 
what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you 
only see a debate 

You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would 
like to be One spirit with you JD 

Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an 
older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in 
the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , 
using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT 
challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of 
:winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right 
again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the 
challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way 
he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin 
air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my 
older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I 
digress with some free advice. 

The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible 
THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! 
Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the 
Christ of God and you have a winner. 


jd




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

  

  
  My goodness, jd. 
  What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  David !! Honestly, this is one of the 
  sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God 
  and I am no atheist. 
  
  
  
  Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I 
  said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 
  seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have 
  somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the 
  notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that 
  it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create 
  the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to 
  me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I 
  believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term 
  , today. Look -- do you really believe that God 
  worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of 
  time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? 
  Com'on David, this is impossible. 
  
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the 
world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for 
him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to 
come into being? I don't understand your 
point.



David 
Miller

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  To:

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

Did you find the GREEN one?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you just 'mean' something? Now I'd suggest another documentary which I watched last evening; 'Wrong-eyed Jesus'- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 18:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?I give you IRANIAN NEWS you say Watch a movie? ROTFL You really are stuck in a FABLEIs the Control Room a documentary or a FAIRY TAIL for Adults? LOLControl Room - IRAQ war? BTW Iraq is not a suburb of IRAN they border each other check the map. http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/900/910/912/maps/middle.east.gif Iran is the Green one. Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice attempt to CYA Kevin but, I'd suggest to rent 'The Control Room' as a rebuttal.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 07:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?NEWS FLASH! http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAELDo you have a similar one citing Jews saying similar? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IFF David had 'nukes' (news flash - he does) then, yes.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?David Oppresses Goliath! Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somone would post a perceptive email then, Iz would say 'Bob's your uncle' while you would pull
out your electronic concordance so as to cite every contra verse you could locate.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 17:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
There you go again - as is your custom. You make these great outlandish accusations and then when asked for evidence you shrink back and put it all off on someone else. There has got to be a psychological term for ppl like you, I know what my husband would say - something about bull dog mouth and humming bird tail On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:03:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I watched whilst the two of you shot down the best of the 'layer-outers'. Close mindedness is the operative _expression_. Sad, sad, sad!From: Judy Taylor Your observations are delusions Lance; I have learned much during my time on TT Just because you have no insight does not negate the reality. Nor does it let you off the hook. If you have all of this insight that DavidM and myself lack then it is your responsibility to lay it out. judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:39:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy:Short of intervention by the Spirit of God, I deem it IMPOSSIBLE for you to be shown anything on TT by anyone. I've observed this over my entire stint on TT. Of course you'll disagree with this. From: Judy Taylor If this were so Lance it would behoove you who are in the "know" to lay it out clearly and succinctly so that we might be corrected. So far I have not seen anything but tongue in cheek comments that are often snide along with Personal shots and put downs. So what is your problem?? From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:My interpretation of what you just said:'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried so hardto get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You do not see themour (God's) way so, you do not see at all!Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm 'thick'but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of you apprehendTHE TEACHING OF
SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES that which is spokenof as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of Scripture overlap.The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of Scripture!!This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis both Scripture'steaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some occasions, are presumptuousto the nth degree!! - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: March 22, 2006 08:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to get you to see
it. Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so hard to get you to see it. You just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not the same thing. We repent if we walk contrary to

Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Contingent Order

Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall.
		Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Contingent Order




After reading you, I'm inclined toward a 
YES!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:35
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine  
  Contingent Order
  Was it a BIG Bang?Lance 
  Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  



When one seeks to apply the latter onto the 
former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's 
head against the proverbial wall.
  
  
  Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone 
  Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined 
toward 'darkening the corner where you are'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:29
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value 
  judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin 
doin' it all that well AT TT!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 18:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR 
  JOB 
  
  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto 
  Cesear
  
  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain 
silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish 
is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing 
opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have 
worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some 
level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not 
need this discussion. The church is not in the High School 
and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic 
evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM 
IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY 
TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking 
about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent 
very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was 
spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves 
  with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence 
  that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced that 
  the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
  would you want to warp young minds with 
  useless information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
  systemsand you are talking about religious 
  people!!! Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version for 
  every major school system 
  . I am sure we can find enough 
  fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
  worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea 
  what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. 
  CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE 
  YOU FREE !! jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being 
that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about 
anything and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is 
needful or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, 
  Judy? 
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
  -- HUH ???
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the 
whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. 
What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 
  there

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Thanks in part to you, I've got some of the facts
before me.

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

Sent: March 24, 2006 06:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism

Facts stand the test better than Feelings.

And as always the deeper things belong to UR MUTHA WEARS COMBAT
BOOTSLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Either that or, you are a TOTALLY IGNORANT
BAPTIST. I've made MY choice, Kevin.

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North?

"if ever a continent
of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution
(extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North
(comments added)
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should
be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse
to submit...must be denied citizenship".

Reformed Baptist? LOL
Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
Baptist DominionISM? LOL
Baptist Pope ROTFL

RC Pope Calvin
Reformed Presbyterian
Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery,
Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance!

Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty
or religious liberty
# 7 The Separation of Church and State

Try to get your baseless assertions straight:
Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery

Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htm

PROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible SWORD
http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpg

For all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the
sword?

Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC
http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/

Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants
Potentates!!!

RJ Rushdooney
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm
The Royal Race of the
Redeemed?
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you
finally come out of hiding after the Y2K fiasco? I do believe that were
we to remove the hoods from some on TT we would see that which underlies
the hatred that you spread throughout the mid-east and,
elsewhere.

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism

AGAIN you show your Short Comprehension
I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC.
wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a
consensus

What do you know of RJR?
Not as much as you think, I suppose.
He is NOT a Fundamentalist
Like Papa like son, bring out the stake
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Spoken like a true studen of
RJR.

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

Sent: March 22, 2006
21:05
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ;
)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious
people!!! Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

But you are inclined to making baseless assertions.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined toward 'darkening the corner where you are'.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent:
March 24, 2006 06:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' it all that well AT TT!- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 18:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismWE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto CesearUnless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that
a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others.
jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that
is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! AmazingMaybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system . I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!
jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd
-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would rejectany mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Couldthat not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests Godis somehow in control as the Creator(?) If thiscould be presented into the secular system of
education without it being coopted by the fundies-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shamethat radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forcesthe Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunityto introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.David MillerYahoo! Messenger with Voice.
PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Oh ya? (see how content-filled that 
is?)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  But you are inclined to making baseless 
  assertions.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined 
toward 'darkening the corner where you are'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:29
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value 
  judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't 
bin doin' it all that well AT TT!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 18:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING 
  OUR JOB 
  
  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto 
  Cesear
  
  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
about? You are so far off course here, as to be just 
plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a 
lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with 
the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for 
evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean 
evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is 
I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its 
college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, 
we would not need this discussion. The church is not in 
the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic 
evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL 
SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST 
IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not 
just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ 
actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most 
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to 
others. 

jd 

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we 
  prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves 
  with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence 
  that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced 
  that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So 
  why
  would you want to warp young minds with 
  useless information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the 
  school systemsand you are talking about religious 
  people!!! Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version 
  for every major school system 
  . I am sure we can find enough 
  fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
  worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest 
  idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
  happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH 
  AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point 
being that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about 
anything and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is 
needful or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion




Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would 
be best buds.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bible N Sword!
  
  Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary 
  North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
  This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have 
  joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.
  
  "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that 
  stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a 
  rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, 
  which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the 
  serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God 
  over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the 
  commandment against murder. Gary North
  
  The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal 
  offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, 
  it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under 
  the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family 
  must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God 
  (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 
  24:16). Gary New Geneva North
  
  The long-term goal of 
  Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. 
  Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions 
  of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism 
  and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient 
  Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New 
  Geneva
  
  Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: 
  turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a 
  valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent 
  politically or militarily. Gary North
  Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's 
  sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told 
  explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win 
  because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical 
  law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile 
  wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old 
  Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we 
  are the replacement" North
  
  What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This 
  strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the 
  sword) North
  
  " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, 
  He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His 
  word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary 
  NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists 
  believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This 
  conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind 
  is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among 
  Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone 
  else.
  

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 

"if ever a 
continent of covenant-breakers deserved this 
attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary 
North (comments added) 
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics 
should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those 
who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". 

Reformed Baptist? LOL 
Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
Baptist DominionISM? LOL
Baptist Pope ROTFL

RC Pope Calvin
Reformed Presbyterian
Bring in the kingdom Presbytery  JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, 
Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD  Lance!

Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
see # 4 The priesthood of the believer  #5 right of soul 
liberty or religious liberty
# 7 The Separation of Church and State

Try to get your baseless assertions straight: 
Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery

Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

If that is so then maybe you skipped the fourth word.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword!Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew,
they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan."The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary NorthThe question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat
of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva NorthThe long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New GenevaNevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" NorthWhat the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North" Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to
keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else.- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismIs KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied
citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFLRC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance!Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty # 7 The Separation of Church and StateTry to get your baseless assertions straight: Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery RJ Rushdoony
Reformed Catholic - Presbytery Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbyteryKindy garten 101 - Who is who? Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htmPROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible SWORD http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpgFor all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the sword?Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants
Potentates!!!Again all the

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American
Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're
next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United
States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led
Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him
to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds. Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian customs frequently target books with homosexual content. Police raids searching for obscene materials have disproportionately targeted gay organizations and bookstores. Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched
into a vicious diatribe against American

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

When was the last time on TT you posted more than two sentences? When was at least one of the sentences about those combat boots? Posts of web pages excepted.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh ya? (see how content-filled that is?)- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism But you are inclined to making baseless assertions.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined toward 'darkening the corner where you are'.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 06:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' it all that well AT TT!- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 18:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismWE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto CesearUnless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO
BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! AmazingMaybe we should install a different creationist version for
every major school system . I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would rejectany mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Couldthat not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist
take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests Godis somehow in control as the Creator(?) If thiscould be presented into the secular system ofeducation without it being coopted by the fundies-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shamethat radical fundamentalism within Christiandom

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Less is more. 

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

  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  When was the last time on TT you posted more than two sentences?
  When was at least one of the sentences about those combat boots?
  Posts of web pages excepted.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

Oh ya? (see how content-filled that 
is?)

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

  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  But you are inclined to making baseless 
  assertions.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 

Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not 
inclined toward 'darkening the corner where you are'.

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

  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:29
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value 
  judgement on it?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 

Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all 
ain't bin doin' it all that well AT TT!

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

  Sent: March 23, 2006 
  18:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism

  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE 
  DOING OUR JOB 

  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto 
  Cesear

  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
about? You are so far off course here, as to be just 
plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that 
a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am 
with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for 
evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't 
mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, 
now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its 
college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
system, we would not need this 
discussion. The church is not in the High School and 
our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic 
evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE 
SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH 
OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- 
and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
lost." Christ actually spent very little of 
His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent 
in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

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

  Why advocate teaching what you don't 
  know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we 
  prove
  evolution do we need to concern 
  ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. 
  Evidence that
  this level of proof has not been 
  achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who 
  have abandoned
  Darwinism because they became 
  convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support 
  it. So why
  would you want to warp young minds 
  with useless information that is not proven? 
  judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the 
  school systemsand you are talking about religious 
  people!!! Amazing

  Maybe we should install a different creationist 
  version for every major school system 
  . I am sure we can find 
  enough fundy ideas to go

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march




Doncha just love that BOLD PRINT? You, Kevin, take 
paragraphs to say 'combat boots'!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought 
  Police on the march
  
  Don't look now but Canada is 
  changing - Group Think
  Gary North would be proud of 
  you folks.
  He tried to bring in New 
  Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
  suceeded!
  
  Robert Martin,professor of constitutional 
  law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a 
  totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I 
  would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. 
  Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is 
  not tolerated."
  
  Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
  professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, 
  for your thoughts!
  
  You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the 
  march.
  By 
  David E. Bernstein 
  
  I've had the 
  good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book 
  about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of 
  a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that 
  freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant 
  to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's 
  happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next."
  The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor 
  and
  understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court 
  upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for 
  propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school 
  students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was 
  convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable 
  group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate 
  speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it 
  therefore passed constitutional muster.
  Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
  unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual 
  content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual 
  activity  including material that the First Amendment would protect in the 
  United States  was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women 
  from discrimination. 
  Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel 
  uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to 
  propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result 
  of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but 
  significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across 
  Canada. 
  In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian 
  government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically 
  incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an 
  appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. 
  An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally 
  incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the 
  effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of 
  constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he 
  increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. 
  I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular 
  state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as 
  heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
  Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate 
  traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the 
  Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix 
  and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages 
  for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the 
  message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. 
  In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused 
  on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local 
  human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the 
  requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always 
  accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work 
  for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds. 
  
  Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on 
  speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian 
  government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism




If you, Kevin, said anything that warranted 
discussion.ZZ

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Creationism
  
  Is there any doubt why there is a lack of discussion on TT?
  UR MUTHA wears Combat boots Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

Judy:The next time you're asked a question 
about anything, just hand 'em a Bible with the accompanying instructions: 
READ IT. Perhaps they'll begin to speak with the clarity with which you 
do.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:26
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Creationism
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  

  What do I believe about 
  Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 
  Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our 
  need for community andan  innate 
  longing to live beyond what we 
  see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of 
  science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 
  
  
  How about a statement of TRUTH communicated 
  by the author of TRUTH then?
  
  What do I get from reading those first three 
  chapters? That God is in control -- not that 
  He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in 
  control. He is my creator. I am in His 
  image. 
  
  He is your Creator but you are not in His 
  image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
  
  Christ already - in fact, not in theory 
  only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that.
  
  And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round 
  me. It tells me that I was created for others 
  -- my wife, my children and the world in which I 
  live.
  
  The first three chapters of Genesis tells you 
  all of the above? Where?
  
  It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. 
  Work is a curse because I must be responsible !!
  
  Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL 
  of your thoughts as well as your actions.
  
  I and my wife are one 
  becauseGodthought this to be the case 
  from the beginning. and REST 
  has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as 
  work. That's what I get out of this Genesis 
  account.Whilesome of you only see a debate 
  
  
  You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord 
  would like to be One spirit with you JD 
  
  Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my 
  case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer 
  believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be 
  a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO 
  NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not 
  win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas 
  wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do 
  it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give 
  biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his 
  life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. 
  Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older 
  boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I 
  digress with some free advice. 
  
  The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the 
  Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war 
  !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life 
  in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 








My 
goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? 
iz





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 
3:36 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one 
of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist 
mocks

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-relatedCanadian Human Rights Commission "The truth
in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein
I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra
was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant
growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has
apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

Bold print is a walker for those that skim. Don't want you to fall!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doncha just love that BOLD PRINT? You, Kevin, take paragraphs to say 'combat boots'!- Original Message - From: Kevin
Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the marchDon't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see
this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my
new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on
_expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is
otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay
$1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds. Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian government's suppression of obscene material, Canadian customs frequently target books with homosexual content. Police raids searching for obscene materials have

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp?lang_update=1 I bet they will create a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" for the Identifiable group of us "Fundies" on TT Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doncha just love that BOLD PRINT? You, Kevin, take paragraphs to say 'combat boots'!- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the marchDon't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert
Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime
of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and
suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in
Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds. Any gains the gay-rights movement has received from the crackdown on speech in Canada have been pyrrhic because as part of the Canadian government's
suppression of obscene material, Canadian customs frequently

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism




'FEEL'? You a lib? Does the writing of some contain 
a coded message? (What I'm saying is sufficiently superficial so as to warrant 
the reader's contempt so.)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Creationism
  
  I FEEL like you are creating a "climate of contempt" I am going to turn 
  you in.
  Seeing as your government tribunals have found that "Protected rights 
  must be interpreted broadly," while, "defences and exceptions 
  are to be applied narrowly." you are in BIG trouble now. Your opinions show 
  willful disdain of the law Human Rights Act 1985. Let the Canadian 
  Inquisition begin. I am calling now.Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

If you, Kevin, said anything that warranted 
discussion.ZZ

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Creationism
  
  Is there any doubt why there is a lack of discussion on TT?
  UR MUTHA wears Combat boots Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

Judy:The next time you're asked a question 
about anything, just hand 'em a Bible with the accompanying 
instructions: READ IT. Perhaps they'll begin to speak with the clarity 
with which you do.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 06:26
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Creationism
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  

  What do I believe about 
  Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 
  
  Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, 
  our need for community andan  innate 
  longing to live beyond what we 
  see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of 
  science, we lessen its value to the human 
  spirit. 
  
  How about a statement of TRUTH 
  communicated by the author of TRUTH then?
  
  What do I get from reading those first three 
  chapters? That God is in control -- not 
  that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT 
  in control. He is my creator. I am in His 
  image. 
  
  He is your Creator but you are not in His 
  image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
  
  Christ already - in fact, not in theory 
  only. Your attitude to His Law would belie 
that.
  
  And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round 
  me. It tells me that I was created for others 
  -- my wife, my children and the world in which I 
  live.
  
  The first three chapters of Genesis tells 
  you all of the above? Where?
  
  It tells me I am responsible for much of my 
  actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible 
  !!
  
  Newsflash!! You are responsible for 
  ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions.
  
  I and my wife are one 
  becauseGodthought this to be the 
  case from the beginning. and 
  REST has as much a place in 
  the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I 
  get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you 
  only see a debate 
  
  You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord 
  would like to be One spirit with you JD 
  
  Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in 
  my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no 
  longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and 
  continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he 
  rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a 
  debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to 
  bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right 
  again." He won't do it. But if you ignore 
  the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make 
  sense to the way he is living his life -- the 
  objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? 
  Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - 
  the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some 
  free advice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march




My critique of this would be similar to your own. 
Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a 
moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to 
govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. 
These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the 
foregoing.

Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz 
that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the 
above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon 
which you focus (signage wise and all).

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought 
  Police on the march
  
  
  The Canadian Guanatamo 
  Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
  Are you hating an identifiable group?
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack 
  on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
  Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?
  
  Justice in Canaduh
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  passed his second year of incarceration without charge
  Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all 
  the evidence against him.
  Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related
  
  Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really 
  plays no role. Rather, it is the social 
  context in which the message is delivered and heard which will 
  determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. 
  It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but 
  rather how it is understood by the 
  recipient.Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
Don't look now but Canada 
is changing - Group Think
Gary North would be proud 
of you folks.
He tried to bring in New 
Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
suceeded!

Robert Martin,professor of 
constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada 
now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled 
today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political 
correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or 
blasphemy is not tolerated."

Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned 
in, for your thoughts!

You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the 
march.
By David E. Bernstein 

I've had the 
good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book 
about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end 
of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe 
that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws 
meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at 
what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next."
The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly 
minor and
understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court 
upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for 
propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public 
high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. 
Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against 
an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. 
Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction 
on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual 
content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual 
activity  including material that the First Amendment would protect in the 
United States  was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women 
from discrimination. 
Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel 
uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to 
propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable 
result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the 
gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil 
liberties across Canada. 
In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the 
Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise 
politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently 
turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

Can you FEEL the "Chill Bill" Now? Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know
all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-relatedCanadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech
restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of
freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks
"Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. For example, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts. In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

Are you talking to me, Gary North?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing.Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon
which you focus (signage wise and all).- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your
comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-relatedCanadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the
communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian
theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month
on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a
"reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official
multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin,

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march




You've in no way misrepresented Canada through 
either your links or your commentary so, I'd ask, having just undergone a 
lobotomy, what your point is?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:14
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought 
  Police on the march
  
  Can you FEEL the "Chill Bill" Now?
  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

The Canadian Guanatamo 
Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
Are you hating an identifiable group?
And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an 
attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?

Justice in Canaduh
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
passed his second year of incarceration without charge
Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know 
all the evidence against him.
Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related

Canadian Human Rights Commission 
"The truth in some 
absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the 
social context in which the message is delivered and heard 
which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the 
listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will 
evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the 
recipient.Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Don't look now but Canada 
  is changing - Group Think
  Gary North would be proud 
  of you folks.
  He tried to bring in New 
  Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
  suceeded!
  
  Robert Martin,professor of 
  constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario 
  "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this 
  as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state 
  religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as 
  heresy or blasphemy is not 
  tolerated."
  
  Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
  professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned 
  in, for your thoughts!
  
  You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the 
  march.
  By David E. Bernstein 
  
  I've had 
  the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new 
  book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At 
  the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether 
  I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United 
  States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my 
  response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, 
  we're next."
  The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly 
  minor and
  understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme 
  court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school 
  teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his 
  public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors 
  to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting 
  hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to 
  two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a 
  "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed 
  constitutional muster.
  Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
  unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual 
  content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of 
  sexual activity  including material that the First Amendment would 
  protect in the United States  was deprived of constitutional protection 
  to protect women from discrimination. 
  Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel 
  uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to 
  propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable 
  result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the 
  gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil 
  liberties across Canada. 
  In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the 
  Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise 
  politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently 
  turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred 
  against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister 
  did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being 
  willfully blind to the

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

Department of Justice Canada284 Wellington StreetOttawa, OntarioCanada K1A 0H8 Minister of JusticeThe Honourable Vic ToewsMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada284 Wellington StreetOttawa, OntarioCanada K1A 0H8 (613) 957-4222 TTY: (613) 992-4556Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'FEEL'? You a lib? Does the writing of some contain a coded message? (What I'm saying is sufficiently superficial so as to warrant the reader's contempt
so.)- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CreationismI FEEL like you are creating a "climate of contempt" I am going to turn you in. Seeing as your government tribunals have found that "Protected rights must be interpreted broadly," while, "defences and exceptions are to be applied
narrowly." you are in BIG trouble now. Your opinions show willful disdain of the law Human Rights Act 1985. Let the Canadian Inquisition begin. I am calling now.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you, Kevin, said anything that warranted discussion.ZZ- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CreationismIs there any doubt why there is a lack of discussion on TT? UR MUTHA wears Combat boots Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy:The next time you're asked a question about anything, just hand 'em a Bible with the accompanying instructions: READ IT. Perhaps they'll begin to speak with the clarity with which you do.- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 06:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CreationismFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community andan innate longing to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then?What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image.
He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that.And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live.The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where?It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !!Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions.
I and my wife are one becauseGodthought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were
right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of
creation that took only 26 seconds to actually

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If I were teaching high school biology right now, I would spend one day out 
of the whole year to discuss the creation / evolution controversy.  I would 
consider some of the stronger arguments for creation.  Furthermore, I would 
teach them that science considers any mention of a Creator as something that 
puts a theory outside the realm of science, and I would teach them that the 
scientific establishment does not consider any model of origins that 
involves a Creator to be something that science could consider.  Of course, 
I would also express my disagreement with this notion because religious 
theories that make empirical predictions can be tested scientifically.  This 
is ignored by the scientific establishment in their zeal to outlaw religious 
theories in schools.

By the way, every past colleague of mine that I have argued this point, 
about creationist models being scientifically testable, have had to agree 
with me that I was right, after MUCH arguing, but they will only concede 
that every Creationist model of origins that is scientifically testable has 
already been falsified.  The ones that have not been falsified are still 
unscientific.  Go figure.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Just how wide do you wish the door open, scientifically speaking? This issue
is akin to the 'prayer in school' issue. (Goose  gander thingy)


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just
 think
 it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools?

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
 then,
 I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
 either.


 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
 Williams
 said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

 So how have I mischaracterized him?

 David Miller


 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
 YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
 David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
 Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to
 you
 and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
 yikes)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to
 be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
 submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The
 moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in
 Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
 very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
 Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

We will let the courtsdecideLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've in no way misrepresented Canada through either your links or your commentary so, I'd ask, having just undergone a lobotomy, what your point is?- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the marchCan you FEEL the "Chill Bill" Now? Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-relatedCanadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded!Robert Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not
tolerated."Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is
really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material
based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multiculturalist agenda, or is otherwise politically incorrect. For example, the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate
court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions. This decision led Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, to comment that he increasingly thinks "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march




Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that 
infamous line no matter who asks?

So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line 
and, you do what you do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little 
wonder that SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere 
else!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought 
  Police on the march
  Are you talking to me, Gary 
  North?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

My critique of this would be similar to your 
own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. 
Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted 
that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, 
by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that 
which opposes the foregoing.

Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and 
Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of 
the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with 
that upon which you focus (signage wise and all).

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  The Canadian Guanatamo 
  Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
  Are you hating an identifiable group?
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an 
  attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
  Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?
  
  Justice in Canaduh
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  passed his second year of incarceration without charge
  Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know 
  all the evidence against him.
  Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related
  
  Canadian Human Rights Commission 
  "The truth in some 
  absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the 
  social context in which the message is delivered and 
  heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on 
  the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that 
  will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by 
  the recipient.Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
Don't look now but 
Canada is changing - Group Think
Gary North would be 
proud of you folks.
He tried to bring in 
New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
suceeded!

Robert Martin,professor of 
constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario 
"Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this 
as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state 
religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded 
as heresy or blasphemy is not 
tolerated."

Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get 
turned in, for your thoughts!

You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the 
march.
By David E. Bernstein 

I've had 
the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my 
new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. 
At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked 
whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the 
United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of 
my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch 
out, we're next."
The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly 
minor and
understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme 
court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school 
teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his 
public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his 
superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully 
promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty 
of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, 
was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed 
constitutional muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:Want a crowd? Want to make some money?

Design a travelling road show which will appear in major cities throughout 
your nation. Offer up yourself as, what the scientific community would call, 
the sacrificial lamb on the altar of truth. Contact the leading lights of 
the scientific community ahead of time. Select a venue. Sell tickets. Do 
exactly what you say below that you've already done. Invite the press. As 
you are CERTAIN of the outcome



- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 08:18
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


If I were teaching high school biology right now, I would spend one day 
out
of the whole year to discuss the creation / evolution controversy.  I 
would
consider some of the stronger arguments for creation.  Furthermore, I 
would
teach them that science considers any mention of a Creator as something 
that
puts a theory outside the realm of science, and I would teach them that 
the

scientific establishment does not consider any model of origins that
involves a Creator to be something that science could consider.  Of 
course,

I would also express my disagreement with this notion because religious
theories that make empirical predictions can be tested scientifically. 
This
is ignored by the scientific establishment in their zeal to outlaw 
religious

theories in schools.

By the way, every past colleague of mine that I have argued this point,
about creationist models being scientifically testable, have had to agree
with me that I was right, after MUCH arguing, but they will only concede
that every Creationist model of origins that is scientifically testable 
has

already been falsified.  The ones that have not been falsified are still
unscientific.  Go figure.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Just how wide do you wish the door open, scientifically speaking? This 
issue

is akin to the 'prayer in school' issue. (Goose  gander thingy)


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just
think
it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
then,
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
Williams
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you 
believe,

Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to
you
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.


I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to
be
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.


He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The
moniker
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in
Christ,
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
very
damaging to

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should 
teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its place 
in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science 
has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science 
being dealt with in the same way?

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  You may feel to teach them that the universe is 
  geocentric if you like. 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism


Im so thankful 
that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the 
Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about 
Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught 
anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public 
education system (before the lefties took over?) 
izzy





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Kevin 
DeeganSent: Thursday, 
March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE 
DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render 
unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the 
Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
  about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain 
  silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is 
  ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion 
  that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked 
  it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
  exist. But, now, it is I who 
  digresses.
  
  
  
  My point? If the church had not 
  surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
  system, we would not need this discussion. The 
  church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert 
  to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE 
  SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST 
  IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just 
  talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually 
  spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day 
  was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 
  
  
  
  
  jd 
  
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Why advocate 
teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only 
when we prove

evolution do we 
need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with 
theism. Evidence that

this level of proof 
has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others 
who have abandoned

Darwinism because 
they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support 
it. So why

would you want to 
warp young minds with useless information that is not 
proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


  

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions 
in the school systemsand you are talking about religious 
people!!! Amazing



Maybe we should install a different 
creationist version for every major school system 
 I am sure we can find enough fundy 
ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea 
what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. 
CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE 
YOU FREE !! jd







  From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as 
  much JD; my point being that religious ppl have 
  many
  
  and varied 
  points of view about anything and everything and this is 
  no
  
  measure by 
  which to gauge what is

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that are 
testable by empirical means. For example, if a model of creation says that 
the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction that is 
testable scientifically? Don't we have empirical clocks to test this 
prediction?

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that 
  which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.
  
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.

I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for 
what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land 
masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but 
hours for the land and water to do what he said.He also may have 
been involved in other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you 
see it differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for 
the next day.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you 
  have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 
  
  
  Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of 
  time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually 
  speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context 
  of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 
  24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical 
  doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even 
  in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. 
  Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis 
  account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. 
  Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His 
  creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up 
  !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this 
  is impossible. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through 
faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak 
words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into 
being? I don't understand your point.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
  5:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
  support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 
  year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The 
  version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that 
  canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just 
  did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water 
  because my mouth was getting dry. 
  
  Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies 
  cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into 
  the school system ??? We are still waiting??
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  So?
  There isn't a single fiew of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church.

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism




Misinformation here, Lance. TruthTalk did not fire anybody. The 
moderator resigned. I still think he would have done a fine job if he had 
allowedsome dialogue about what he was doing.

I do agree, however, that Christians (and you know how I use 
thisterm)cannot be trusted anymore than anyone else. 

The liberty of the teacher should be allowed, whether we trust the teacher 
or not. Our ability to communicate with the teacher should be enough to 
help curb any undesirablebehavior. I favor communication and 
persuasion over censorship. How about you?

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:49 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  Censorship you say, David? TT just fired a 
  censor? Christians can be no more trusted than anyone else. I'd not expect you 
  to agree on this though in granting 'Senator' CDM a stint you illustrated my 
  point.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 16:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Let the teacher decide what is relevant. They don't teach all the 
competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem? The 
problem of censorship should concern you because the truth is not afraid of 
evidence. You should be concerned whenever one side uses legal 
maneuvers and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being heard.

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  And who is going to present these competing versions of 
  creation -- the average Joe school teacher 
  ?? Do you have any idea what an antagonist educator would do 
  with such information? Actually, this "creationism in 
  the school" thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !! 
  
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where 
Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody 
Home? Think, McFly, Think."

To further elucidate my point:having numerous 
creationist models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our 
educational system. There are numerous models of evolution as 
well. The premise by which you think you can rest your case is 
ratherelusive.

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 
  1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal 
  a candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that 
  one over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms 
  securely locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for 
  assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped 
  around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?'
  
  David: You sound a little like Homer in 
  your reply.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 
10:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Lance 
wrote:
 There are as many 
'species' of creationists as fish.

The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your 
point? 

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 
  2006 7:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism
  
  There are as many 'species' of 
  creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of 
  computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already 
  come up with. I rest my case your honor.
  
- Original Message - 

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 
06:44

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

I'd Amen that, David. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:40
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  Misinformation here, Lance. TruthTalk did not fire anybody. 
  The moderator resigned. I still think he would have done a fine job if 
  he had allowedsome dialogue about what he was doing.

  I do agree, however, that Christians (and you know how I use 
  thisterm)cannot be trusted anymore than anyone else. 

  The liberty of the teacher should be allowed, whether we trust the 
  teacher or not. Our ability to communicate with the teacher should be 
  enough to help curb any undesirablebehavior. I favor communication 
  and persuasion over censorship. How about you?

  David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:49 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Censorship you say, David? TT just fired a 
censor? Christians can be no more trusted than anyone else. I'd not expect 
you to agree on this though in granting 'Senator' CDM a stint you 
illustrated my point.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 23, 2006 16:49
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  Let the teacher decide what is relevant. They don't teach all 
  the competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem? The 
  problem of censorship should concern you because the truth is not afraid 
  of evidence. You should be concerned whenever one side uses legal 
  maneuvers and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being heard.

  David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

And who is going to present these competing versions of 
creation -- the average Joe school teacher 
?? Do you have any idea what an antagonist educator would do 
with such information? Actually, this "creationism in 
the school" thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !! 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, 
  where Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody 
  Home? Think, McFly, Think."

  To further elucidate my point:having numerous 
  creationist models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our 
  educational system. There are numerous models of evolution as 
  well. The premise by which you think you can rest your case is 
  ratherelusive.

  David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 
1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Homer Simpson, while attempting to 
steal a candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He 
dragged that one over to another for a second attempt thus getting 
both arms securely locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to 
dial 911 for assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your 
hands wrapped around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point 
being?'

David: You sound a little like Homer in 
your reply.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 23, 2006 
  10:59
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
  Creationism

  Lance 
  wrote:
   There are as many 
  'species' of creationists as fish.

  The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your 
  point? 

  David Miller

- Original Message - 

From: 
Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 
2006 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on 
Creationism

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


There is much about this list that I like. I remain a political conservative when it comes to the increase of states rights, free enterprise, spending within our means,
property rights, and those sort of things. Neither the Republican nor Democrate parties demonstrate values similar to mine in these regards. I was a Democrate and voted for Carter - the first time. And, in fact, came within a breath of voting for Clinton , the first time. If he hadn't have said "I smoked but I didn't inhale" with a view that we take him seriously, I would have. He was not that bad of a preseident -- not a great one, by any means, but not that bad. He did talk the Jews into making all those concessions and that is overlooked by many. the fact that he used the room in the White House called an "office" to do his deed with Monica some 50 or 60 times is most disgusting to me. For my money, the worst, most immoral President of all time was Nixon. God is the judge, but I see Nixon as thoroughly reprobate. He used Vietnom to get re-elected and his party supported him in that !!??
bsp; 

I am thouroughly anti-communist and anti-socialist. The problem with being anti-socialist is that our government has not conducted itself within the parameters of true compassionate conservatism -- making socialism in a number of venues a necessity. We have allowed the Mexican immigrant population to overwhelm us to the point that there is no solution other than amnesty. We have allowed the medical industry so much profit that socialized medicine -- someday -- will become the law of the land. We have so ignored Vocational Education as to make social welfare a greater demand than ever before. 

Anyway -- not a bad list.

jd




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


I'm humbled at your objectivity, Kevin. 

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:36
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Christian roots of our public education system

No but I do know about the Lefty Fruits of our public education, it is not about education. it is all about Indoctrination.
Government school Education is one of the promises ofthe Communist Manifesto 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school  property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share". 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. We call it Federal  State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the propert
y of all emigrants and rebels. We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Police confiscation and Court ordered political fines.5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. 7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate reg
ulations. 8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Who wouldn't be convinced when one employes 
terms/expressions such as 'testable by empirical means', 'model of 
creation..less than 10,000 years old' , 'a prediction that is testable 
scientifically?' and 'empirical clocks to test this prediction?' Now, why 
don't you take this on the road?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that 
  are testable by empirical means. For example, if a model of creation 
  says that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction 
  that is testable scientifically? Don't we have empirical clocks to test 
  this prediction?
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that 
which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.
  
  I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time 
  for what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the 
  land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say 
  it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.He 
  also may have been involved in other ways that we don't understand right 
  now. Do you see it differently? It does not have anything to 
  do with resting for the next day.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts 
you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no 
atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours 
of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to 
actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost 
the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that 
"day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is 
metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the 
world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to 
me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I 
believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that 
term , today. Look -- do you really believe that 
God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour 
period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for 
what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through 
  faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak 
  words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into 
  being? I don't understand your point.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 
year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The 
version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that 
canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just 
did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of 
water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies 
cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes 
into the school system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Don't you get it JT?

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation 
science' reflects neither.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should 
  teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its 
  place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how 
  science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation 
  science being dealt with in the same way?
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

You may feel to teach them that the universe is 
geocentric if you like. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  Im so thankful 
  that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the 
  Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about 
  Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be 
  taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of 
  our public education system (before the lefties took over?) 
  izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE 
  DOING OUR JOB 
  
  
  
  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, 
  render unto Cesear
  
  
  
  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

What in the hell do you think I have been 
talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just 
plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung 
fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing 
opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have 
worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some 
level does not exist. But, now, it is I who 
digresses.



My point? If the church had not 
surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
system, we would not need this discussion. The 
church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert 
to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE 
SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF 
CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am 
not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ 
actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most 
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to 
others. 



jd 




  -- Original message -- 
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Why advocate 
  teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only 
  when we prove
  
  evolution do we 
  need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with 
  theism. Evidence that
  
  this level of 
  proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and 
  others who have abandoned
  
  Darwinism because 
  they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support 
  it. So why
  
  would you want to 
  warp young minds with useless information that is not 
  proven? judyt
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
  

  
  I'm talking about fundy creationist 
  versions in the school systemsand you are talking about 
  religious people!!! 
  Amazing
  
  
  
  Maybe we should install a different 
  creationist version for every major school system 
   I am sure we can find enough 
  fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
  worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea 
  what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. 
  CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian education. 

jd

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







No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science' reflects neither.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric if you like. 

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 



jd 



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

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove

evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that

this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned

Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why

would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing



Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd







From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many

and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no

measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?

There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon

by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 

there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 



jd







-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

John wrote:

 The world in which we live would

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Dog-gone it all. Why do you say such things??!! Past collegues? You mean those guys you knew 18 years ago before you became a software programer?? Your teachers back in the college days of your youth? 

jd


By the way, every past colleague of mine that I have argued this point, about creationist models being scientifically testable, have had to agree with me that I was right, after MUCH arguing, but they will only concede that every Creationist model of origins that is scientifically testable has already been falsified. The ones that have not been falsified are still unscientific. Go figure.David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism


A guy who thinks "ur mutha wears Combat (let's be sure to capitalized that word) boots" has something to say concerning [real] discussion on TT !!?? Tell me it isn't so.

jd

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Is there any doubt why there is a lack of discussion on TT?
UR MUTHA wears Combat boots Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Judy:The next time you're asked a question about anything, just hand 'em a Bible with the accompanying instructions: READ IT. Perhaps they'll begin to speak with the clarity with which you do.

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 06:26
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 
Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community andan  innate longing to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 

How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then?

What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. 

He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that.

And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live.

The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where?

It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !!

Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions.

I and my wife are one becauseGodthought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a debate 

You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD 

Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. 

The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 


jd




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








My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 



Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point.



David Miller


- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion


I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. 

jd

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

Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion






Bible N Sword!

Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.

"The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North

The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North

The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva

Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North

What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North

" Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else.



- 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 

"if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added) 
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". 

Reformed Baptist? LOL 
Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
Baptist DominionISM? LOL
Baptist Pope ROTFL

RC Pope Calvin
Reformed Presbyterian
Bring in the kingdom Presbytery  JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD  Lance!

Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
see # 4 The priesthood of the believer  #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty
# 7 The Separation of Church and State

Try to get your baseless assertions straight: 
Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery

Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htm

PROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible  SWORD
http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpg

For all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the sword?

Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC
http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/

Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants  Potentates!!!

Again

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion




You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin  
David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide 
the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess 
you've gotten me into, Stanley...'

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
  
  I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has 
  been written on TT. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary 
would be best buds.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Dominion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bible N Sword!
  
  Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary 
  North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
  This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually 
  have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.
  
  "The fifth and by far the most important reason is 
  that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means 
  of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a 
  rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the 
  head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final 
  victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore 
  integral to the commandment against murder. Gary 
  North
  
  The question eventually must be raised: Is it a 
  criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse 
  their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son 
  or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The 
  integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of 
  death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, 
  and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva 
  North
  
  The long-term goal 
  of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the 
  franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the 
  eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the 
  covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just 
  as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North 
  written from New Geneva
  
  Nevertheless, this one fact should be 
  apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It 
  is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is 
  impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
  Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied 
  God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was 
  told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not 
  win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, 
  biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no 
  gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale 
  imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the 
  future. Gary "we are the replacement" North
  
  What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. 
  This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law 
  with the sword) North
  
  " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the 
  contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands 
  us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. 
  Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some 
  fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of 
  the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The 
  battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction 
  movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes 
  seriously the law of God, and everyone else.
  

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

Sent: March 23, 2006 
17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 

"if ever a 
continent of covenant-breakers deserved this 
attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." 
PopeGary North (comments added) 
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics 
should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion


Yes. Look at Pat Robertson. If he were president, he would be killing heads of state he considers enemies of the [our] state. 

jd

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

You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin  David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...'

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. 

jd

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

Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion






Bible N Sword!

Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.

"The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North

The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North

The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva

Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North

What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North

" Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else.



- 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 

"if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added) 
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". 

Reformed Baptist? LOL 
Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
Baptist DominionISM? LOL
Baptist Pope ROTFL

RC Pope Calvin
Reformed Presbyterian
Bring in the kingdom Presbytery  JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD  Lance!

Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
see # 4 The priesthood of the believer  #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty
# 7 The Separation of Church and

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




The history of public education is a little more complicated than 
this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available to 
those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in because 
the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace Mann, 
etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a melting 
pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public education 
for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and focusing upon 
the knowledge that was more common among the different religious sects.

What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came from 
Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came about 
through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists, 
thePuritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never 
materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through 
the efforts of menlike Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism to 
the Unitarian church.

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:12 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian 
  education. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 
'creation science' reflects neither.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she 
  should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against 
  it,and its place in thehistory of science and religion. 
  Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a 
  problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way?
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

You may feel to teach them that the 
universe is geocentric if you like. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  
  Im so 
  thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be 
  taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be 
  taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for 
  them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the 
  Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties 
  took over?) izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
  DeeganSent: 
  Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL 
  SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
  
  
  
  
  Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, 
  render unto Cesear
  
  
  
  Unless of course you are swayed by the 
  Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

What in the hell do you think I have been 
talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be 
just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe 
that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am 
with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for 
evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean 
evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is 
I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not 
surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
system, we would not need this discussion. 
The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to 
convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED 
TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion




I have seen NOBODY on TruthTalk express the theology of Gary North. 
You guys sound to me like the way you hearJudy talking authoritatively 
about Torrance. :-) It is obvious that you do not understand the 
theology of North and others on TruthTalk.

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance 
  Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:59 
AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
  
  You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin  
  David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide 
  the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess 
  you've gotten me into, Stanley...'
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that 
has been written on TT. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary 
  would be best buds.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Dominion






Bible N Sword!

Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist 
Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually 
have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.

"The fifth and by far the most important reason is 
that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by 
means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by 
means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the 
crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism 
testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. 
Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment 
against murder. Gary North

The question eventually must be raised: Is it a 
criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse 
their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son 
or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The 
integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of 
death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, 
and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva 
North

The long-term 
goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over 
the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to 
the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks 
of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied 
citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON 
Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva

Nevertheless, this one fact should be 
apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It 
is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is 
impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied 
God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses 
was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan 
will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of 
dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds 
CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God 
is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and 
He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern 
Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the 
replacement" North

What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. 
This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law 
with the sword) North

" Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the 
contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands 
us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. 
Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some 
fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions 
of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. 
The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction 
movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes 
seriously the law of God, and everyone else.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Thanks for the footnote confirming John's 
point.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 10:55
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  The history of public education is a little more complicated than 
  this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available 
  to those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in 
  because the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace 
  Mann, etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a 
  melting pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public 
  education for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and 
  focusing upon the knowledge that was more common among the different religious 
  sects.
  
  What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came from 
  Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came about 
  through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists, 
  thePuritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never 
  materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through 
  the efforts of menlike Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism 
  to the Unitarian church.
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:12 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian 
education. 

jd

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

  

  No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 
  'creation science' reflects neither.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she 
should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against 
it,and its place in thehistory of science and 
religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, 
but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the 
same way?

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lance Muir 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  You may feel to teach them that the 
  universe is geocentric if you like. 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 
23:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


Im so 
thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can 
be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to 
be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be 
illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea 
about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the 
lefties took over?) izzy





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
DeeganSent: 
Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE 
SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 




Our Job is NOT the school system or 
Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the 
Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  What in the hell do you think I have been 
  talking about? You are so far off course here, as to 
  be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I 
  believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In 
  fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been 
  enough time for evolution to have worked it's 
  wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion




I read his father-in-law's 'Institutes of Biblical 
Law' (RJR). I read some of North's books. I followed him during the Y2K 
controversy through his appearances on 'Coast to Coast' with Art Bell. I taped 
and distributed those shows. (MORE DIRECT ANSWER: I am indeed familiar with the 
theonomist approach!) Having said that, I'd say that the similarity might be 
more in tone though some content as well, David.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 10:57
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
  
  I have seen NOBODY on TruthTalk express the theology of Gary North. 
  You guys sound to me like the way you hearJudy talking authoritatively 
  about Torrance. :-) It is obvious that you do not understand the 
  theology of North and others on TruthTalk.
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Lance 
Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:59 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin  
David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to 
provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another 
fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...'

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Dominion
  
  I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that 
  has been written on TT. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary 
would be best buds.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Dominion
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bible N 
  Sword!
  
  Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist 
  Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
  This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they 
  actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.
  
  "The fifth and by far the most important reason 
  is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head 
  by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head 
  by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the 
  crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism 
  testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. 
  Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment 
  against murder. Gary North
  
  The question eventually must be raised: Is it a 
  criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people 
  curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). 
  The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. 
  The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat 
  of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable 
  crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva 
  North
  
  The long-term 
  goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control 
  over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit 
  publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's 
  public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be 
  denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death 
  to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva
  
  Nevertheless, this one fact should be 
  apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. 
  It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian 
  is impotent politically or militarily. Gary 
  North
  Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied 
  God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses 
  was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan 
  will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of 
  dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds 
  CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; 
  God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, 
  and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - 
  modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the 
  replacement" North
  
  What

[TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye

Well, it is Friday.  Time to say our goodbyes.

I will leave the list up through the weekend to give time for lurkers to 
catch up and perhaps make their final post.  Please bring the other 
conversations to a close and focus on saying your final farewells.  I will 
start with this one, but I plan to send some more posts where I talk about 
past members of TruthTalk and some of my impressions, for good or for bad. 
In this post, I want to talk about TruthTalk in general.

In my opinion, much of the difficulty of TruthTalk these last several years 
has been related to a problem described by the proverb, FAMILIARITY BREEDS 
CONTEMPT.  I have seen this same phenomena in home churches too.  When a 
small group of people become so thoroughly familiar with each other that 
much of what others would say become somewhat predictable, people become 
more free to speak their mind and tend to focus more upon faults than 
strengths in the other person.  Marriages often illustrate this same 
difficulty.  The time frame for this seems to start at around 4 years, and 
within 10 years, it becomes rather entrenched.  Those groups that tend to be 
focused upon itself exhibit more of this tendency than groups that tend to 
reach out and pull in fresh people.

On TruthTalk, there was a time when that polarizing of groups became rather 
noticeable.  There came to be the liberals versus the conservatives, which 
eventually turned into the liberals versus the fundamentalists.  When this 
first came to light, I questioned the group whether we should encourage this 
kind of sectarian dialogue.  Several on the list thought it was natural 
human nature and fine not only to allow it but encourage it.  Interestingly, 
some of those most outspoken for this perspective are no longer on the list. 
My personal judgment in hindsight is that any kind of sectarianism like this 
is counter productive for good discussion.  What happens is that people 
speak more from bias and emotion rather than engage in a teamwork of 
discovery.  People tended to work harder on putting the other side in their 
place rather than trying to hear whether or not there was even a grain of 
truth in what was being said.

Overall, I have appreciated TruthTalk very much.  It has been a source of 
motivation for me to study issues that I might otherwise have left 
untouched.  My heart has been warmed by many who have posted here, and my 
mind has been enriched with a diversity of viewpoints to consider and 
examine.  Some on TruthTalk have steered my thinking in certain directions 
that I might otherwise not have gone.  Some have blessed me by pointing me 
to resources and individuals that have previously been outside of my realm 
of study.  In some future posts, I will discuss some of the members of 
TruthTalk who have most impacted me and how they influenced me.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

Except in Canada that is

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'd Amen that, David. 
   - Original Message - 
   From: David Miller 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 08:40
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

   Misinformation here, Lance.  TruthTalk did not fire anybody.  The
 moderator resigned.  I still think he would have done a fine job if
 he had allowed some dialogue about what he was doing.

   I do agree, however, that Christians (and you know how I use this
 term) cannot be trusted anymore than anyone else.  

   The liberty of the teacher should be allowed, whether we trust the
 teacher or not.  Our ability to communicate with the teacher should
 be enough to help curb any undesirable behavior.  I favor
 communication and persuasion over censorship.  How about you?

   David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:49 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

 Censorship you say, David? TT just fired a censor? Christians can
 be no more trusted than anyone else. I'd not expect you to agree on
 this though in granting 'Senator' CDM a stint you illustrated my
 point.
   - Original Message - 
   From: David Miller 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 23, 2006 16:49
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

   Let the teacher decide what is relevant.  They don't teach all
 the competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem?  The
 problem of censorship should concern you because the truth is not
 afraid of evidence.  You should be concerned whenever one side uses
 legal maneuvers and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being
 heard.

   David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

 And who is going to present these competing versions of
 creation  --   the average Joe school teacher ??   Do you have any
 idea what an antagonist educator would do with such information?   
 Actually, this creationism in the school thingy is really starting
 to sound like a bad idea !!  

 jd

   -- Original message -- 
   From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

   You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the
 Future, where Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, Hello, Hello,
 Anybody Home?  Think, McFly, Think.

   To further elucidate my point:  having numerous creationist
 models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our
 educational system.  There are numerous models of evolution as well. 
 The premise by which you think you can rest your case is rather
 elusive.

   David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

 Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal a candy bar from
 a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that one over to
 another for a second attempt thus getting both arms securely locked
 in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for assistance.
 The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped around candy
 bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?'

 David: You sound a little like Homer in your reply.
   - Original Message - 
   From: David Miller 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 23, 2006 10:59
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

   Lance wrote:
There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish.

   The same can be said for evolutionists.  So what is
 your point?  

   David Miller
 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

 There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish.
 Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up
 with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case
 your honor. 
   - Original Message - 
   From: Judy Taylor 
   To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44
   Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

   Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD?  As
 has already been noted Only when we prove
   evolution do we need to concern

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

So you learned something.
He was a leader in the Dominion/Reconstruction movement I believe he
was also Rushdoony's Son in Law.

The real direction of the movement is slavery or Stoning for those it
decides are not right with their concept of God.

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that
 has been written on TT.   
 
 jd
 
 -- Original message -- 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
 Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds.
 - Original Message - 
 From: Kevin Deegan 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bible N Sword!
 
 Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed
 Catholic Taliban)
 This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually
 have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.
 
 The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is
 literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock
 literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock,
 which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the
 head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the
 final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is
 therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North
 
 The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to
 take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents,
 it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter
 is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the
 family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing
 God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital
 crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North
 
 The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain
 exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit
 publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His
 Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion -
 must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
 Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva
 
 Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other
 cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as
 the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
 
 Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty
 and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's
 blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has
 abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds
 CALVINistic to me)
 
 There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile
 wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation
 of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future.
 Gary we are the replacement North
 
 What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a
 strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North
 
  Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the
 contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God
 commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on
 ourselves. Gary North
 
 The battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between
 fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of
 the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is
 between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among
 Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else.
 - 
 From: Kevin Deegan 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
 
 
 Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 
 
 
 if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution
 (extermination), the native Americans did. Pope Gary North
 (comments added) 
 Pope Gary North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should
 be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to
 submit...must be denied citizenship. 
 
 Reformed Baptist? LOL 
 Baptist Reconstruction? LOL
 Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL
 Baptist DominionISM? LOL
 Baptist Pope ROTFL
 
 RC Pope Calvin
 Reformed Presbyterian
 Bring in the kingdom Presbytery  JD
 Replacement Theology We are Jews Presbytery, Romans, Reformed C's,
 Mormons, Reformed, JD  Lance!
 
 Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists
 http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
 see # 4 The priesthood of the believer  #5 right of soul liberty or
 religious liberty
 # 7 The Separation of Church and State
 
 Try to get your baseless assertions straight: 
 Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
 RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery
 Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery
 
 Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
 Baptist Roger Williams

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you agree
with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below)
Which is it Lance? I do not understand such behavior it seems
irrational to me.

I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist.

Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of
MccarthyISM.
The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal
thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure.
Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated!

The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. 
You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the right to
violently disagree with words NO SWORDS!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no matter
 who asks?
 
 So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what you
 do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder that
 SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere else! 
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
 
 
   Are you talking to me, Gary North?
 
   Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a
 civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a
 moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some
 attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by
 the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on
 that which opposes the foregoing.
 
 Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine
 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do
 believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon
 which you focus (signage wise and all).
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
 
 
 
   The Canadian Guanatamo 
   Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
   Are you hating an identifiable group?
   And your comments on FUNDIES have hurt me, I understand it as
 an attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
   Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? 
 
   Justice in Canaduh
  
 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
   passed his second year of incarceration without charge
   Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to
 know all the evidence against him.
   Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related
 
   Canadian Human Rights Commission The truth in some absolute
 sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which
 the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect
 that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth
 or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is
 understood by the recipient.
 
   Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think
 Gary North would be proud of you folks.
 He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you
 folks have actually suceeded!
 
 Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the
 University of Western Ontario Canada now is a totalitarian
 theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would
 describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness].
 Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated.
 
 Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors
 who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in,
 for your thoughts!
 
 You Can't Say That
 Canadian thought police on the march.
 By David E. Bernstein 
 
 I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the
 road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are
 eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book,
 an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of expression
 is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women
 and minorities. The heart of my response is, Look at what's
 happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next.
 
 The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began with
 seemingly minor and
 understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian
 supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a
 public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and
 anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite
 repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted
 of the crime of willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable
 group, which carries a penalty

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion


I believe Lance has the more accurate picture of what I was trying to convey.

jd

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

I read his father-in-law's 'Institutes of Biblical Law' (RJR). I read some of North's books. I followed him during the Y2K controversy through his appearances on 'Coast to Coast' with Art Bell. I taped and distributed those shows. (MORE DIRECT ANSWER: I am indeed familiar with the theonomist approach!) Having said that, I'd say that the similarity might be more in tone though some content as well, David.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 10:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

I have seen NOBODY on TruthTalk express the theology of Gary North. You guys sound to me like the way you hearJudy talking authoritatively about Torrance. :-) It is obvious that you do not understand the theology of North and others on TruthTalk.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin  David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...'

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. 

jd

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

Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion






Bible N Sword!

Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban)
This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan.

"The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North

The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North

The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva

Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North
Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North

What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North

" Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else.



- 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

IFO can accept this self-characterization. But when your words sound like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named above.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you agree with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) Which is it Lance? I do not understand such behavior it seems irrational to me. I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of MccarthyISM. The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the right to violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! --- Lance M
uir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no matter who asks? So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what you do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder that SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere else! - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Are you talking to me, Gary North? Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some
attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as
; an attack on me multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient." Kevin Deegan wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Can't Say That" Canadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune
of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

Who was the violent one? Rushdooney or his son-in-law?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sandlin10.html

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you learned something. He was a leader in the Dominion/Reconstruction movement I believe he was also Rushdoony's Son in Law. The real direction of the movement is slavery or Stoning for those it decides are not right with their concept of God. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murd
er. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North writ
ten from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me) There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy
is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary North The battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Is K
D a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFL RC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans, Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance! Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reforme
dreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

Kevin:It's both I totally agree with your critique. I also 'see' some of 
that which I critiqued in you.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 12:52
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you agree
with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below)
Which is it Lance? I do not understand such behavior it seems
irrational to me.

I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist.

Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of
MccarthyISM.
The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal
thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure.
Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated!

The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words.
You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the right to
violently disagree with words NO SWORDS!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no matter
who asks?

So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what you
do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder that
SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere else!
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin Deegan

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

  Are you talking to me, Gary North?

  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a
civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a
moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some
attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by
the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on
that which opposes the foregoing.

Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine
'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do
believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon
which you focus (signage wise and all).
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin Deegan

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

  The Canadian Guanatamo
  Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
  Are you hating an identifiable group?
  And your comments on FUNDIES have hurt me, I understand it as
an attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
  Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?

  Justice in Canaduh

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  passed his second year of incarceration without charge
  Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to
know all the evidence against him.
  Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related

  Canadian Human Rights Commission The truth in some absolute
sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which
the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect
that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth
or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is
understood by the recipient.

  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think
Gary North would be proud of you folks.
He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you
folks have actually suceeded!

Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the
University of Western Ontario Canada now is a totalitarian
theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would
describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness].
Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated.

Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors
who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in,
for your thoughts!

You Can't Say That
Canadian thought police on the march.
By David E. Bernstein

I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the
road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are
eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book,
an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of expression
is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women
and minorities. The heart of my response is, Look at what's
happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next.

The decline of freedom of expression in Canada began with
seemingly minor and
understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian
supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a
public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and
anti-Semitic views to his public

Re: [TruthTalk] and you thought it couldn't get better


http://www.millerformayor.ca/

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy Taylor - kind of a surprise !!



http://www.starboundranch.com/

Re: [TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye

can you transfer ownership and just move on??

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, it is Friday. Time to say our goodbyes. I will leave the list up through the weekend to give time for lurkers to catch up and perhaps make their final post. Please bring the other conversations to a close and focus on saying your final farewells. I will start with this one, but I plan to send some more posts where I talk about past members of TruthTalk and some of my impressions, for good or for bad. In this post, I want to talk about TruthTalk in general. In my opinion, much of the difficulty of TruthTalk these last several years has been related to a problem described by the proverb, FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT. I have seen this same phenomena in home churches too. When a small group of people become so thoroughly familia
r with each other that much of what others would say become somewhat predictable, people become more free to speak their mind and tend to focus more upon faults than strengths in the other person. Marriages often illustrate this same difficulty. The time frame for this seems to start at around 4 years, and within 10 years, it becomes rather entrenched. Those groups that tend to be focused upon itself exhibit more of this tendency than groups that tend to reach out and pull in fresh people. On TruthTalk, there was a time when that polarizing of groups became rather noticeable. There came to be the liberals versus the conservatives, which eventually turned into the liberals versus the fundamentalists. When this first came to light, I questioned the group whether we should encourage this kind of sectarian dialogue. Several on the list thought it was natural human nature and fine not only to allow it but encoura
ge it. Interestingly, some of those most outspoken for this perspective are no longer on the list. My personal judgment in hindsight is that any kind of sectarianism like this is counter productive for good discussion. What happens is that people speak more from bias and emotion rather than engage in a teamwork of discovery. People tended to work harder on putting the other side in their place rather than trying to hear whether or not there was even a grain of truth in what was being said. Overall, I have appreciated TruthTalk very much. It has been a source of motivation for me to study issues that I might otherwise have left untouched. My heart has been warmed by many who have posted here, and my mind has been enriched with a diversity of viewpoints to consider and examine. Some on TruthTalk have steered my thinking in certain directions that I might otherwise not have gone. Some have blessed me by pointin
g me to resources and individuals that have previously been outside of my realm of study. In some future posts, I will discuss some of the members of TruthTalk who have most impacted me and how they influenced me. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









You didnt answer the question. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
10:41 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than
evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation
creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation
and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK
into the general population. Evenan old earth
belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution
to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic
evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating
growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro -
no. 











I believe that the eternity of God is philosophically
preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of
elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal
with a radical andatheistic biology prof. These were
some of the points I gave them. They used them in class.They 
semed to work. 











Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our
schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of
creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a
knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean --
isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT
science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a
concept could be implemented. 











jd











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


 If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?

 izzy 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
 
 David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
then, 
 I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools 
 either. 
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
 Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation ism 
 
 
  The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, 
  Williams 
  said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. 
  
  So how have I mischaracterized him? 
  
  David Miller 
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Lance Muir 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM

  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  
  
  David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position.
DOUBLE 
  YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly
trapped, 
  David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you
believe, 
  Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done
to you 
  and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri ple

  yikes) 
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Miller

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  
  
  Lance wrote: 
  If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then 
  you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. 
  
  I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane
ought to be 
  separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have 
  submitted 
  unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 
  
  Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes 
  differently than you on some matters. 
  Now, if that makes him what you say 
  then, that makes you what I say. 
  
g t;  He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.
The moniker 
  was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of
our 
  Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational
statement, 
  assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in
Christ, 
  then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as
other 
  believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he
will 
  continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove
the 
  acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said
was 
  very 
  damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God
the 
  Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the 
  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from
scientists but 
  not 
  from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend
Doctor 
  Rowland 
  Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
  
  David Miller 
  
  -- 
  Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,
that you may 
  know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Speaking for myself, I do not think creation(ism) 
should be taught in schools.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 16:14
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  
  You didnt answer the 
  question. 
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:41 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  
  Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger 
  force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a 
  mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same 
  mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being 
  absorbed BACK into the general population. Evenan old earth 
  belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution 
  to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And 
  theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God 
  manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - 
  yes. Macro - no. 
  
  
  
  I believe that the "eternity of God" is 
  philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and 
  motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons 
  had to deal with a radical andatheistic biology prof. 
  These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in 
  class.They  semed to work. 
  
  
  
  
  Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum 
  of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What 
  brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it 
  without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I 
  mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says 
  this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way 
  such a concept could be implemented. 
  
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If you 
thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?  
izzy   -Original Message-  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir  
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:Is that all 
you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then,  I'm with 
RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools  
either.- Original Message -  
From: "David Miller" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  Sent: 
March 23, 2006 15:04  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creation ism The CNN report: Asked if 
creationism should be taught in schools,   Williams  
 said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no."   
  So how have I mischaracterized him?
 David Miller   
- Original Message -   From: 
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
10:41 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize 
both Williams and his position. DOUBLE   YIKES!! I know that you 
will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,   David. You've 
bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,   
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you 
  and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be 
tri ple   yikes)   - Original Message - 
  From: "David 
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  
 Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 
'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm 
sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be 
  separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who 
have   submitted   unto Jesus Christ as 
their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes  
 differently than you on some matters.   
Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes 
you what I say.   g t;  He is not a liberal 
loony for believing differently from me. The moniker   was 
offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  
 Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, 
  assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a 
brother in Christ,   then I expect to hear a retraction or 
clarification made soon as other   believers correct him. If 
he is not a brother in Christ, then he will   continue to 
support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the   
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Jd, I remember when my oldest son told me
(when he was in college) that he was no longer a Believer.   I calmly told him
that he was going through a good and necessary stage of life in which he was
rejecting what he had been taught as a child so that he could re-evaluate
everything for himself. I assured him that when he had completed this task that
he would find that what he had been taught about his faith as a child would not
only prove to be true, but would be his very own, internalized belief.  He is
now a Christian, although he does not usually attend church although his wife
usually does.  He is more of a solitary person, like his father.  I would
appreciate prayers for his growth in the area of fellowship. He is as fine a
young man as ever I have met. I have learned much from him over the years, and thoroughly
enjoy every moment I get to spend with him. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
11:01 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my
posts? 











Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for
community andan  innate longing
to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a
statement of science, we lessen its value to the human
spirit. 











What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That
God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control
- but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my
creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He
continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was
created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I
live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my
actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible
!! I and my wife are one
becauseGodthought this to be the case from the
beginning. and REST has as much
a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get
out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a
debate  











Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an
older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the
bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at
times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge
him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning
is to bring that child to say Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again.
He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give
biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life
-- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory?
Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer
and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. 











The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible
THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present
the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of
God and you have a winner. 

















jd

















jd











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


My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about
Genesis??? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
3:36 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be
scientific as we understand that term , today.
Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His
creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up
!!!?? And rest up  for what? Com'on David,
this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









No, I wish I could be with them every day
to do that, but I only get to teach them when I visit them out of state. The
girls have been reading since they were four years old and are SO smart!!! (Im
not biased, either! J ) Since age 6 you could
ask Gretchen to read any book, chapter and verse in the Bible, and she would
pick it up, find the place, and happily read it to you without a problem. They
are taught mostly by their mom and some by their dad. Their mother got a masters
degree in education with the intent of becoming a homeschooling Mom. My (younger
or two grown-up kids) son has his masters in aeronautical engineering
with a minor in German, and now flies for Fed-Ex and teaches pilot training one
week/month in the Reserves. They can teach anything a school aged child might
need to learn I think. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
11:04 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Are you the teacher?











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


Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family.
In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough
time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean
evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who
digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











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



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout
consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but
you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE
TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So?





There isn't a single view of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of

RE: [TruthTalk] Parting Wishes









I cant wait to see what mighty
things you will accomplish for Gods Kingdom in your adulthood,
Christine! Hugs and kisses!!! Linda











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Christine Miller
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
11:47 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Parting
Wishes





You have all blessed me on
this forum. Discussing new ideas and analyzing scripture with you all has been
so edifying, and I believe that God will continue to use what has transpired
here. 

Thank you for encouraging and challenging me, and for opening yourselves up to
me. It's been an adventure. 

Isaiah 26:3
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he
trusteth in thee.

I pray that perfect peace upon you all.

Love,

Christine







Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools.  That's all that's left.
Pathetic IMO.  izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Still no.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?
 izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it 
 then,
 I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
 either.

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
 Williams
 said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

 So how have I mischaracterized him?

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
 YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
 David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
 Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to 
 you
 and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
 yikes)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to 
 be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
 submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The 
 moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in 
 Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
 very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
 Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Fortunately we comprehend the truth since
we believe Gods Word. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:30
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric
if you like. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:23





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











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



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So?





There isn't a single view of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd























-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:





 The world in which we live would reject 





 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 





 IMO. But creationism in the schools?
Could 





 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 





 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 





ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.











John wrote:





 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 





 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this

RE: [TruthTalk] on Creationism









And yet you object to such truth being
taught to children; favoring something else instead. Pathetic. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:28
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism







It does.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:14





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism









It is also absurd that someone who claims
to believe that all truth comes from God would not consider that all true
science does the same. izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
3:46 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism







Supply all the names of real scientists that you like, Lance. It
does not change the facts about the position of the scientific
establishment. I'm talking about organizations like theNational
Academy of Sciences. They make a big legal case concerning
howcreation science is religion and therefore it is ILLEGAL to teach it
in public schools. Any mention of a Creator makes it RELIGION instead of
SCIENCE. Their position is that science and religion occupytwo
separate realms of human experience. They accept the fact thatmany
scientists are deeply religious, but they insist that the two cannot be
combined. Therefore,any mention of a Creator in science is
forbidden. 











I reject the notion that science and religion do not overlap.











By the way, the NAS also makes bigmention of how most religious
groups have concluded that evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of
creation and human origins. In other words,the scientific
establishmentloves guys like R. Williams who help them keep the
acknowledgement of God out of the classroom.











David Miller













- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Thursday, March
23, 2006 2:30 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism











David says that 'the scientific establishment has...'. Look,
David, if the generalization works for you then, OK! I already told you that
I'd supply the names of real, as opposed to pretend, scientists, who are
themselves believers (I supplied a couple of names) who hold to a variety of positions
on this matter. 







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
14:20





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism











I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have
destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is that
the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention of a
Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic evolution is
flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism
in schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this fact?











David Miller













- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Thursday, March
23, 2006 10:06 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism











With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place creationism
into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. 











And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring
hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter
skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very
same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. 
Scary. 











jd











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



There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a
million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up
with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your
honor.







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
06:44





Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism











Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









And demonic beings encouraging one another
in their strategies. 











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:27
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







A book truly perceptive re: human nature.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:12





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Why is this so hauntingly reminiscent of
communication between Screwtape and Wormwood? iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
3:40 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







You have risen to new heights, soon to be appointed
ARCHbishop, John.







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: March 23, 2006
16:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be scientific
as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you
really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed
a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And rest up 
for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an unknown e.t. ? The version that says it took
God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 











Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Don't you get it JT?





TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!





The opinions of Men are the key.

Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







So?





There isn't a single fiew of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd























-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:





 The world in which we live would reject 





 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 





 IMO. But creationism in the schools?
Could 





 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 





 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 





ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.











John wrote:





 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 





 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 





 could be presented into the secular system of 





 education without it being coopted by the fundies 





 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can.
What a shame 





 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 





 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 





 to introduce the Creator to others. 





In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of
Canterbury who are doing this.











David Miller





























Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
PC-to-Phone

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the 
words? Probably got it comin'.


Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. 
creationism)



- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools.  That's all that's left.
Pathetic IMO.  izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Still no.


- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? 
JD?

izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
then,
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
Williams
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you 
believe,

Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to
you
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.


I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to
be
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.


He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The
moniker
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in
Christ,
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
very
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
not
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
Rowland
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have 
a

friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.




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

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


--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Are you aware (seriously) that for a lengthy period 
people believed God's Word AND believe in a geocentric universe?

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

  Sent: March 24, 2006 16:36
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  Fortunately we 
  comprehend the truth since we believe Gods Word. 

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:30 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  You may feel to teach them that 
  the universe is geocentric if you like. 

- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 
23, 2006 23:23

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Im so thankful 
that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the 
Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about 
Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught 
anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public 
education system (before the lefties took over?) 
izzy

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Kevin 
DeeganSent: Thursday, 
March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE 
DOING OUR JOB 

Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render 
unto Cesear

Unless of course you are swayed by the 
Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  What in the hell do you think I have been talking 
  about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain 
  silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is 
  ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion 
  that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked 
  it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
  exist. But, now, it is I who 
  digresses.

  My point? If the church had not 
  surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity 
  system, we would not need this discussion. The 
  church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert 
  to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE 
  SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST 
  IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just 
  talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually 
  spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day 
  was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

  jd 

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

Why advocate 
teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only 
when we prove

evolution do we 
need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with 
theism. Evidence that

this level of proof 
has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others 
who have abandoned

Darwinism because 
they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support 
it. So why

would you want to 
warp young minds with useless information that is not 
proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions 
in the school systemsand you are talking about religious 
people!!! Amazing

Maybe we should install a different 
creationist version for every major school system 
 I am sure we can find enough fundy 
ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea 
what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. 
CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE 
YOU FREE !! jd

  From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  I surmised as 
  much JD; my point being that religious ppl have 
  many

  and varied 
  points of view about anything and everything and this is

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Depending, certainly, upon who stated it.
iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:43
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism







Less is more. 







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
07:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











When was the last time on TT you posted more than two sentences?





When was at least one of the sentences about those combat boots?





Posts of web pages excepted.

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







Oh ya? (see how content-filled that is?)







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
07:06





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









But you are inclined to making baseless assertions.

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 



Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined toward
'darkening the corner where you are'.







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
06:29





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value judgement on it?

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 



Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' it all
that well AT TT!







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
18:39





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











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



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been achieved
includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system . I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is needful
or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So?





There isn't a single view of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

violent thinking is not violent action
And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway?

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 IFO can accept this self-characterization.  But when your words sound
 like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in
 your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named
 above.   
 
 jd
 
 -- Original message -- 
 From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
  First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you
 agree 
  with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) 
  Which is it Lance? I do not understand such behavior it seems 
  irrational to me. 
  
  I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. 
  
  Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of 
  MccarthyISM. 
  The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal 
  thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. 
  Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! 
  
  The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. 
  You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the
 right to 
  violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! 
  
  --- Lance Muir wrote: 
  
   Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no
 matter 
   who asks? 
   
   So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what
 you 
   do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder
 that 
   SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere
 else! 
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march 
   
   
   Are you talking to me, Gary North? 
   
   Lance Muir wrote: 
   My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a 
   civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a
 
   moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that
 some 
   attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or,
 by 
   the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on
 
   that which opposes the foregoing. 
   
   Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine
 
   'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above?
 I do 
   believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that
 upon 
   which you focus (signage wise and all). 
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march 
   
   
   
   The Canadian Guanatamo 
   Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! 
   Are you hating an identifiable group? 
   And your comments on FUNDIES have hurt me, I understand it as 
   an attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; ) 
   Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? 
   
   Justice in Canaduh 
   
  
 http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
 
   passed his second year of incarceration without charge 
   Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to 
   know all the evidence against him. 
   Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related 
   
   Canadian Human Rights Commission The truth in some absolute 
   sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in
 which 
   the message is delivered and heard which will determine the
 effect 
   that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the
 truth 
   or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it
 is 
   understood by the recipient. 
   
   Kevin Deegan wrote: 
   Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think 
   Gary North would be proud of you folks. 
   He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you 
   folks have actually suceeded! 
   
   Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the 
   University of Western Ontario Canada now is a totalitarian 
   theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would 
   describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. 
   Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not
 tolerated. 
   
   Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors 
   who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned
 in, 
   for your thoughts! 
   
   You Can't Say That 
   Canadian thought police on the march. 
   By David E. Bernstein 
   
   I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the 
   road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are
 
   eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the
 book, 
   an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of
 expression 
   is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid
 women 
   and minorities. The heart of my response is, Look at what's 
   happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next. 
   
   The decline of

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


If "it" refers to creationism , you didn't read my last paragraph. And I do believe in [my brand of ] creationism --- still don't want it taught in the secular school system.

jd

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








You didnt answer the question. 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:41 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK into the general population. Evenan old earth belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro - no. 



I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a radical andatheistic biology prof. These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in class.They  semed to work. 



Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a concept could be implemented. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?  izzy   -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then,  I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools  either.- Original Message -  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T
o:  Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation ism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,   Williams   said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller   - Original Message -   From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To:   Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE   YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,   David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe
,   Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you   and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri ple   yikes)   - Original Message -   From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To:   Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   Lance wrote:   If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be   separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have   submitted   unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote:   He is a brother in Chr
ist who believes   differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.   g t;  He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker   was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our   Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement,   assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,   then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other   believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will   continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the   acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was   very   damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the  
; Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the   acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but   not   from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor   Rowland   Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









And you accused Kevin of making
smart-assed replies???











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:51
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Who wouldn't be convinced when one employes
terms/expressions such as 'testable by empirical means', 'model of
creation..less than 10,000 years old' , 'a prediction that is testable
scientifically?' and 'empirical clocks to test this prediction?' Now, why
don't you take this on the road?







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
08:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that
are testable by empirical means. For example, if a model of creation says
that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction that is
testable scientifically? Don't we have empirical clocks to test this
prediction?











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 4:44 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that
which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.











- Original Message - 







From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
17:01





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.











I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for
what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses
to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for
the land and water to do what he said.He also may have been
involved in other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it
differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next
day.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Thursday, March
23, 2006 4:36 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be
scientific as we understand that term , today.
Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His
creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up
!!!?? And rest up  for what? Com'on David,
this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an unknown e.t. ? The version that says it took
God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 











Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Don't you get it JT?





TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!





The opinions of Men are the key.

Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







So?





There isn't a single fiew of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed

Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

Todays Reconstruntionists would like to forget a thing or two about
both of them. But watch out these beliefs run deep and rampant with
this crowd! Many believe we are in a spiritual war and during time of
war even God overlooks some actions such as lying. qoutes on request.
One only needs to do a google on rushdoony racist, rushdoony
confederate, nazi, etc.

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Who was the violent one?  Rushdooney or his son-in-law?
 
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sandlin10.html
 
 jd
 
 -- Original message -- 
 From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
  So you learned something. 
  He was a leader in the Dominion/Reconstruction movement I believe
 he 
  was also Rushdoony's Son in Law. 
  
  The real direction of the movement is slavery or Stoning for those
 it 
  decides are not right with their concept of God. 
  
  --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
   I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much
 that 
   has been written on TT. 
   
   jd 
   
   -- Original message -- 
   From: Lance Muir 
   
   Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. 
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Bible N Sword! 
   
   Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North
 (Reformed 
   Catholic Taliban) 
   This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they
 actually 
   have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. 
   
   The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning
 is 
   literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a
 rock 
   literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a
 rock, 
   which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of
 the 
   head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to
 the 
   final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is 
   therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North
 
   
   The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense
 to 
   take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their
 parents, 
   it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or
 daughter 
   is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of
 the 
   family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly,
 cursing 
   God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital
 
   crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North 
   
   The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain 
   exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit 
   publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His 
   Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy
 communion - 
   must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
 
   Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva 
   
   Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the
 other 
   cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long
 as 
   the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North 
   
   Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's
 sovereignty 
   and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's 
   blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he
 has 
   abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North
 (sounds 
   CALVINistic to me) 
   
   There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no
 gentile 
   wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale
 imitation 
   of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the
 future. 
   Gary we are the replacement North 
   
   What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy
 is a 
   strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword)
 North 
   
Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the 
   contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God 
   commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law
 on 
   ourselves. Gary North 
   
   The battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is
 between 
   fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception
 of 
   the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is
 
   between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among 
   Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone
 else. 
   - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
   
   
   Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 
   
   
   if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this
 attribution 
   (extermination), the native Americans did. Pope Gary North 
   (comments added) 
   Pope Gary North The long-term goal of Christians in politics
 should 
   be

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Ignorance of facts demonstrated here to
the max. Public education WAS religious (Christian) education. I will do the
homework and post the truth if I have time before we go down with the TT ship!
iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:13
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian
education. 











jd











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



No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science'
reflects neither.







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
08:33





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she
should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and
its place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange
how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation
science being dealt with in the same way?











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 4:30 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric
if you like. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:23





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











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



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Hats off to you , Linda, on this one. It starts with our families. We can yell and scream at each other, here on TT, but some of our decisions can damn our children. Your patience and trust in the Lord is above the call. 

jd

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








Jd, I remember when my oldest son told me (when he was in college) that he was no longer a Believer. I calmly told him that he was going through a good and necessary stage of life in which he was rejecting what he had been taught as a child so that he could re-evaluate everything for himself. I assured him that when he had completed this task that he would find that what he had been taught about his faith as a child would not only prove to be true, but would be his very own, internalized belief. He is now a Christian, although he does not usually attend church although his wife usually does. He is more of a solitary person, like his father. I would appreciate prayers for his growth in the area of fellowship. He is as fine a young man as ever I have met. I have learned much from him over the years, and thoroughly enjoy every moment I get to spend with him. izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:01 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 



Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community andan  innate longing to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 



What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! I and my wife are one becauseGodthought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a debate  



Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. 



The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 





jd





jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 



Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point.



David Miller


-

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Excellent !

jd

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








No, I wish I could be with them every day to do that, but I only get to teach them when I visit them out of state. The girls have been reading since they were four years old and are SO smart!!! (Im not biased, either! J ) Since age 6 you could ask Gretchen to read any book, chapter and verse in the Bible, and she would pick it up, find the place, and happily read it to you without a problem. They are taught mostly by their mom and some by their dad. Their mother got a masters degree in education with the intent of becoming a homeschooling Mom. My (younger or two grown-up kids) son has his masters in aeronautical engineering with a minor in German, and now flies for Fed-Ex and teaches pilot training one week/mo
nth in the Reserves. They can teach anything a school aged child might need to learn I think. izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:04 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Are you the teacher?



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 



jd 



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

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove

evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that

this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned

Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why

would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing



Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd







From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many

and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no

measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?

There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon

by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 

there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 



jd







--

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

My answer is Lance's. In view of that , I will interject this comment -- your alternative is not the only consideration. I do not want the secular system giving review to matters of faith. Nothing good would be accomplished -- and high school kids, by and large, do not "believe in evolution" anyway.

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no.- Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No,
no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - F
rom: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say.
He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God
are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --
t; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march