from:"Dave"

After allANTI's are Stupid Losers and do not really
undestand, just can't get the facts straight!

DAVEH: Sigh Sometimes I just don't feel compelled to argue
with you, Kevin.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

CONTENTION is of the Devil
3 Ne 11 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye
baptize. And there shall be no disputations
among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be
disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there
have hitherto been.
nbsp29
For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of
contention
is not of me, but is of the devil,
who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men
to contend with anger, one with another.

Perhaps this helps with keeping the members in line too after
all when the leaders speak the th inking has been done.

The Holy Bible on the other hand says:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 clearly
commandsto "prove all things."
The scriptures tell us to CONTEND
for the faith ONCE delivered
"Preach the word; be instant
in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will
not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away
their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Paulwas so despised bysome that he was lashed
on5occasions,beaten w/ rods three times, and was nearly stoned to
death

The real qu estion is just who it is really getting
angry.
Galatians 4:16"Am I therefore
become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
After allANTI's are Stupid Losers and do not
really undestand, just can't get the facts straight!
http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/negative.htm

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To avoid
WHAT?

DAVEH: Contention perhaps, such as is commonly found here?

ShieldsFamily wrote:

To avoid
WHAT? That nice, positive place? iz

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Dave
Hansen
Sent: Monday,
March 20, 2006 12:30 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

DAVEH: The Lord has provided
a way for us to avoid it.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

What is the
positive message about hell? iz

Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of
hell?

DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be
more positive in my approach.

-- ~~~ Dave
Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New
PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





I believe there has been numerous attempts on TT.

DAVEH: The keyword is attempts. And when you use the term numerous,
just how many times does mean numerous, Kevin?

You say you do not get it but at least it has been attempted.

DAVEH: When did I say that I do not get it? Care to quote me
on that Kevin, or are you just making stuff up? I bet you cannot even
recall when it was attempted and who attempted it.

Seems to me that OTOH there is NO ATTEMPT to explain LDS
Trinities!

DAVEH: Like I said Kevin..If you don't want to answer my
question, I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon
faith Trinity!.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I believe there has been numerous attempts on TT.
  You say you do not get it but at least it has been attempted.
  Seems to me that OTOH there is NO ATTEMPT to explain
LDS Trinities!
  
  Father Son and Michael
  versus
  Father Son and Holy Ghost
  
  Great Granpa, Granpa and Grandson
  (Father Son and ADAM/Michael)
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  How
do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it using
the Trinity?

DAVEH: Ohhh.Kevin, I forgot to add.If you don't want
to answer my question, I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon
faith Trinity!

Dave Hansen wrote:
How
do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?
  
  DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain
it using the Trinity?
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS
ONE?
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of
using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of
creating an unquenchable fire
is a bit weak if that unquenchable
fire (burning bush) has been quenched.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  
  Yours?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It
is simply an
observation of illogic.
  
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  Oh,
I guess God forgot
how to do that particular trick, eh? iz
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  DAVEH: Only if the bush is
still burning.
  
  David Miller
wrote: 
  DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
  a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was 
  burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  
  David Miller
  
  

  
  Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science 
  book" per se.
  Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
  called "science"
  Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
  Physics?
  
  Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I 
  think) ...
  
  KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
  endless torment.
  a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
  
  DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be 
  extinguished, whereas
  mental torment can go on forever.
  
  So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
  delivered what he had
  promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
  A God who was
  able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
  them in the desert for 40yrs
  feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
  out and their feet from
  swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
  head to float on water
  The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
  of Jezebels' chariot and
  had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.
  
  Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
  feeble efforts of man explain
  Him?
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
  you.
  
  Lance 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





I have numerous times would you like the posts reposted to refresh your
memory?


DAVEH: Yes Kevin, please do.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I have numerous times would you like the posts reposted to refresh your
memory?

What is up with all the various LDS TRINITIES?
I am real interested in the CREATORS of this planet
Why is Adam a creator of Earth?
Why are you to follow adam to become a God?
ELohim 
Jehovah
Michael/Adam 

Why is Adam a Grandson?
Great Granpa, Granpa and Grandson*
  
  

  (Father Son and ADAM/Michael)
  

  
  
--- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
*I believe there has been numerous attempts on TT.*

DAVEH:   The keyword is *attempts*.  And when you use the term 
*numerous*, just how many times does mean* numerous*, Kevin?

*You say you do not get it but at least it has been attempted.*

DAVEH:   When did I say that I *do not get it*?  Care to quote me on 
that Kevin, or are you just making stuff up?  I bet you cannot even 
recall when it was *attempted* and who *attempted *it.

*Seems to me that OTOH there is _NO ATTEMPT_ to explain LDS
Trinities!*

DAVEH:  Like I said Kevin..*If you don't want to answer my
question, 
/I understand your reluctance to defend the mormon faith /Trinity!*.

Kevin Deegan wrote:



  *I believe there has been numerous attempts on TT.*
*You say you do not get it but at least it has been attempted.*
*Seems to me that OTOH there is _NO ATTEMPT_ to explain LDS
  

Trinities!*


   
*Father Son and Michael*
versus
*Father Son and Holy Ghost*
** 
*Great Granpa, Granpa and Grandson*
(Father Son and ADAM/Michael)

*/Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

*How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?*
_
DAVEH:   I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it
using the Trinity?_

DAVEH:   Ohhh.Kevin, I forgot to add.*If you don't
want to answer my question, /I understand your reluctance
to defend the mormon faith /Trinity!*

Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  
*How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?*

_DAVEH:   I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain

  

it


  
using the Trinity?_

Kevin Deegan wrote:



  If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
*How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?*
  

  

-- 
~~~
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.



  
  

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



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





DAVEH: Was there a question somewhere in there, Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  And I would think that it would be easy for you to answer why you take
part of the same sentence/verse figurative and another literal.
I asked; you avoided, because there is no logical reason to do so, just
an Emotive one!

--- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
DAVEH:  I would think anybody who understands that the argument of
using 
a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating
an 
*unquenchable fire* is a bit weak if that *unquenchable fire*
(burning 
bush) has been quenched.

ShieldsFamily wrote:



  Yours?

 


  

  
  
  
  

  **

 

DAVEH:  Not at all, Izzy.  It is simply an observation of illogic.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz

 


  

  
  
  
  

   

*Doesn't that teach us something about God's *

*abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?*

DAVEH:   Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote:

DaveH, I agree with Judy here.  The argument of a "literal
  

impossibility" is 


  a little weak when we are talking about God.  Moses did see a bush
  

that was 


  burning but not consumed.  *Doesn't that teach us something about
  

God's *


  *abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?*



David Miller






Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance?  Genesis is not a
  

"science 


  book" per se.

Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that
  

is 


  called "science"

Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy
  

and 


  Physics?



Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD  
  

(I 


  think) ...



KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in
  

reality 


  endless torment.

a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire



DAVEH:   More imagery that is physically an impossibility.  Fire can
  

be 


  extinguished, whereas

mental torment can go on forever.



So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God
  

who 


  delivered what he had

promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old
  

respectively. 


  A God who was

able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward
  

kept 


  them in the desert for 40yrs

feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from
  

wearing 


  out and their feet from

swelling.  The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused
  

an axe 


  head to float on water

The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in
  

front 


  of Jezebels' chariot and

had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.



Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how
  

can the 


  feeble efforts of man explain

Him?





On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir"
  

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


  writes:

Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever
  

fashion suits 


  you.



Lance 

 

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

but it does logically support the idea
that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.

DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one,
DavidM.

David Miller wrote:

The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of
whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would
not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea
that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now.

By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black
magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks.
The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-)

David Miller

DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a
burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an
unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has
been quenched.

ShieldsFamily wrote:
Yours?

DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic.

ShieldsFamily wrote:
Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz

Doesn't that teach us something about God's
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote:
DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is
a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was
burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?

David Miller

Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science
book" per se.
Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is
called "science"
Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and
Physics?

Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I
think) ...

KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality
endless torment.
a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire

DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be
extinguished, whereas
mental torment can go on forever.

So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who
delivered what he had
promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively.
A God who was
able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept
them in the desert for 40yrs
feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing
out and their feet from
swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe
head to float on water
The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front
of Jezebels' chariot and
had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.

Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the
feeble efforts of man explain
Him?

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits
you.

Lance

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The week winds down...





DAVEH: With this post DavidM, I think you've exceeded your maximum
posting limit of 8 posts per day. I'd request a moderator reprimand
in your behalf, but like previous moderatorsour current moderator
is now changing the rules on the fly. Good thing you didn't make the
subject line read..MODERATOR COMMENTor, I'd be unable to
express my displeasure at your below post!  :-( 

 Seriously.I'll miss TT and all the folks I've met here. And
that includes the ones who've clashed with me on occasion over the
years. For those TTers who I've either offended or irritatedI
offer my apologies. I've learned much from you folks. If any of you
ever get to the Portland area, I do hope you'll look me upI can
easily be found via the shop. And for those who only get as close as
SLC, I hope to meet you in a couple years or so when I intend to get
down there for a reunion at Conference time.

 If I can be so bold as to offer some advice to DavidM.If you
ever get bored with life and find you have too much time on your hands,
fire up the old TT boiler for a revival of the fun and fellowship. I
bet we'd all be quick to jump right back on the TT battle-wagon!

 May God Bless You All..!!!

 Cheerio.Dave Hansen

 

David Miller wrote:

  
  
  
  As the week winds down, I will not be enforcing any rules on
TruthTalk. If any of you have felt muzzled by the no ad hominem rule,
now is your time to vent. However, I would ask that you consider that
you will be leaving your last impression upon us, so it might be
prudent for you to be nice.
  
  The reason I am doing this is that some might feel like saying
something but are concerned about being reprimanded. Won't happen
after this post. I planto take the list down after this week. So
take the next few days to wrap up your discussions on subjects. I will
give you one more notice about two days before I take down the list
(probably around Thursday or Friday)so that you can say your final
good byes. 
  
  David Miller
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





Do YOU know of anyone who has read that
new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: I'm not aware of anybody locally who has read it. I belong to
Mormon-Library, and several members have it, but as yet none have
posted a personal review. Several reviews have been posted on M-L
though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. From everything I've
heard, it is a good biography of JS. Several MLers are book dealers,
and they've said RSR is outselling the other JS biographies by a large
margin. FWIWThere must have been at least a half dozen or more
biographies about JS published this past year.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave!
You'd be so bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF
your first 'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole
system/foundation/restored version is man-made.
  
  PS:Do YOU know of anyone who has
read that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone
Rolling - Richard Lyman Bushman
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 11:21
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


I was wondering how you would answer.

DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will
reciprocate. 

 Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in
the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity
that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer.
  
  
  Is this that difficult to answer?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH, I agree with Judy here.  The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
a little weak when we are talking about God.  Moses did see a bush that was 
burning but not consumed.  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance?  Genesis is not a "science 
book" per se.
Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
called "science"
Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
Physics?

Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD   (I 
think) ...

KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
endless torment.
a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire

DAVEH:   More imagery that is physically an impossibility.  Fire can be 
extinguished, whereas
mental torment can go on forever.

So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
delivered what he had
promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
A God who was
able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
them in the desert for 40yrs
feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
out and their feet from
swelling.  The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
head to float on water
The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
of Jezebels' chariot and
had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.

Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
feeble efforts of man explain
Him?


On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
you.

Lance 
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





It's OK to answere the oft-asked first
question, DH.

DAVEH: ??? What first question?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  It's OK to answere the oft-asked
first question, DH. Nobody reads TT of any consequence. IMO your's
is a genuinely house of cards system. Is it not likely, perhaps even
necessarily, the case that IFF JS were a fraud then the balance of the
LDS superstructure collapses?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 20, 2006 03:10
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do YOU know of anyone who has read
that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: I'm not aware of anybody locally who has read it. I belong to
Mormon-Library, and several members have it, but as yet none have
posted a personal review. Several reviews have been posted on M-L
though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. From everything I've
heard, it is a good biography of JS. Several MLers are book dealers,
and they've said RSR is outselling the other JS biographies by a large
margin. FWIWThere must have been at least a half dozen or more
biographies about JS published this past year.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave!
You'd be so bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF
your first 'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole
system/foundation/restored version is man-made.
  
  PS:Do YOU know of anyone who
has read that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough
Stone Rolling - Richard Lyman Bushman
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 11:21
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


I was wondering how you would answer.

DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will
reciprocate. 

 Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in
the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer.
  
  
  Is this that difficult to
answer?
  
  Who do you, believe
to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  

  


  


-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] RSR





DAVEH: How far are you into it, and do you think it is a good read?
I'm too cheap to buy it now, but rather prefer to wait until it pops up
on the used market for much cheaper.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  I'm reading it now, Dave.
  
I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith
- Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: Have you read it, Lance?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend
the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





 We're saying 'if you really understood
then, you'd agree with me/us'.

DAVEH: I don't see it that way at all, Lance. One can understand
something and still disagree. For instance, I understand why some
denominations baptize infants. That does not mean that I agree with
them.rather it just means I can understand their rationale for
doing so. 

 As I see it, some people read something related to LDS theology and
then assume it means something entirely different than what LDS people
understand it to mean. Usually that is because the person either has
an agenda, and reads into the words the meaning that fits that
agenda...or, the person takes the words out of context and/or fails
to consider related clarifying information ...or, the person fails
to consider the source of the information and assumes the information
has more relevance than reality dictates.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  Sadly Dave, this is the retort that
many/most make in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if you
really understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 17:16
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





DAVEH: ?!?!?!?! I had to read that about 3 times to even understand
your question, Lance! 

 As I see it, there is a vast difference between understanding
something, and believing it to be true. Let's assume that baptizing
infants is a correct doctrine. If I understand why those denominations
baptize babies, but do not have a witness of the Holy Spirit that it is
true, then I might be inclined to think it is in erroreven if I am
wrong in that belief while at the same time understanding it. 

 The flip side of that is one can have little or no understanding of
the truth of something, yet one know that it is true if the HS has
witnessed that it is true.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  DH:IFF that position you claim to
understand is, in reality, true THEN you don't actually understand it,
do you?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 20, 2006 10:08
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


We're saying 'if you really
understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.

DAVEH: I don't see it that way at all, Lance. One can understand
something and still disagree. For instance, I understand why some
denominations baptize infants. That does not mean that I agree with
them.rather it just means I can understand their rationale for
doing so. 

 As I see it, some people read something related to LDS theology and
then assume it means something entirely different than what LDS people
understand it to mean. Usually that is because the person either has
an agenda, and reads into the words the meaning that fits that
agenda...or, the person takes the words out of context and/or fails
to consider related clarifying information ...or, the person fails
to consider the source of the information and assumes the information
has more relevance than reality dictates.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  Sadly Dave, this is the retort
that many/most make in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if
you really understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 17:16
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!

[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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  
  Oh, I guess
God forgot how to do that
particular trick, eh? iz
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
  Sent: Monday, March
20, 2006 2:14
AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
  
  
  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  DAVEH: Only if the bush is
still burning.
  
  David Miller wrote: 
  DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
  a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was 
  burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  
  David Miller
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Judy Taylor
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
  
  Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science 
  book" per se.
  Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
  called "science"
  Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
  Physics?
  
  Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I 
  think) ...
  
  KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
  endless torment.
  a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
  
  DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be 
  extinguished, whereas
  mental torment can go on forever.
  
  So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
  delivered what he had
  promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
  A God who was
  able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
  them in the desert for 40yrs
  feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
  out and their feet from
  swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
  head to float on water
  The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
  of Jezebels' chariot and
  had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.
  
  Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
  feeble efforts of man explain
  Him?
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
  you.
  
  Lance 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





To avoid
WHAT?

DAVEH: Contention perhaps, such as is commonly found here?


ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  To avoid
WHAT? That nice, positive place?
iz
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
  Sent: Monday, March
20, 2006 12:30
AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Hell BoM
  
  
  DAVEH: The Lord has provided
a way for us to
avoid it.
  
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  What is the
positive message about hell? iz
  
  
  
  
  Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of 
  hell?
  
DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to
be more positive in my approach.
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

DAVEH:   Another typo, Kevin?  Were you intending to send a subtle 
message to the Bishop


GRIDDLE me that, Matman!



Kevin Deegan wrote:


RIDDLE me that Batman!

 



--
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: The same way Jesus said we could be one with them..

[Jn 17:21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe
that thou hast sent me.
[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they
may be one, even as we are one:
[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved
them, as thou hast loved me.

[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that
the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

.I reckon when we have the same love for others as the Lord has
for us, we shall become perfect in our purposejust as they are,
Kevin.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
  How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I
do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell
me you really have one.

DAVEH: I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to understand
them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them at all, but
just skim them for the talking points. Do you not recall me saying
that I worship only one God?

Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say
you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. Do you
not recall the Paul saying

[1Cor8:5] For t hough there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

.then Paul goes on to explain.

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him.

that to us there is but one God, the Father

[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and we are to worship the Father

the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and if there is any question as to the meaning, he
goes on to say the Father seeketh such to worship him..
The Bible is pretty clear on this a nd makes it very simple to
understand. Once again, Kevin...this is what I believe. If you have a
problem understanding it, or comprehending itI don't know what else
to say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled
your thinking.



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE
gods but you tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you
say you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Do
I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  


As DH has acknowledged
and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect
as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or emba
rrass him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend
the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From:
  Kevin Deegan 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to
answer?
  
  Who do you,
believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH: For a guy who
knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering
this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me
out here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe
to be God

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it using
the Trinity?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
  How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it using
the Trinity?

DAVEH: Ohhh.Kevin, I forgot to add.If you don't want to
answer my question, I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon
faith Trinity!

Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?
  
  DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it
using
the Trinity?
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

2006-03-19 Thread Dave





I was wondering how you would answer.

DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will
reciprocate. 

 Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in
the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that
is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to answer?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out here
Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

2006-03-19 Thread Dave





jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to
be redeemed eternally because without the
shedding of blood there is no remission of
sin. 

DAVEH: ??? Jesus could not forgive sin without shedding of blood? Is that what you
believe?

if we were privy to the Jewish
sacrificial system we would understand
more what a serious business this is


DAVEH: That God subscribes to the Jewish sacrificial system would suggest God is
beholden to law far more deeply than some may think. If God is as
powerful as you believe, could he not circumvent the Jewish sacrificial
system?

How would you suggest He speak His will
with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have
it change by osmosis?

DAVEH: Why do you think God created Lucifer? Rather than allow us to
be tempted, would it now have been easier to either not create the
devil, or perhaps to fully destroy him instead of letting him inflict
his evilness upon mankind?



Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I don't make up things that paint God
into any corner;

DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God
can do anything, 
yet he seems to do things the hard way from our perspective.

jt: Anything physically yes, such as
rain, drought, changing seasons, moving mountains.
However, his holiness prevents him from
lying or being one with evil/sin.

If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son
through the horror of dying on the 
cross in our behalf? Could not have God simply snapped his
fingers to make all right? 
Could not God have destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from
screwing up the world? 

jt: It was necessaryif mankind were
to be redeemed eternally because without the
shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin. I think if we were privy to the Jewish
sacrificial system we would
understand more what a serious business this is and Peta
would come unglued.

 Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and
has presented us 
a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan is not
simple, but involves a lot of 
pain and suffering by all mankind. For a God who is all
powerful, why need there be any 
pain and suffering at all? 

jt: Because God gives everything he
creates freedom of choice; He could have created
automatons but forced love is no love at
all. Power and control breed fear. God desires
our love and worship freely given. So
he gives us a choice and even makes a way for
us when we blow it and miss the mark.
That's love.

Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO, so are a
lot of the things people 
believe about God.

jt: Oh I agree; in fact most of what we
hear about God is mixture but He reveals Himself
to those who will seek Him with their
whole heart. Just about everyone will say they believe
in God and even the demons believe and
tremble. But as the Psalmist writes "the gods
of the nations are idols" (or fantasy)

all He has to do is speak to the rock and it
will move just as He spoke the worlds
into existence.

DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be
crucified. Wouldn't 
it have been more expedient to just speak
his will be done?

jt: Speaking to an inanimate object , to
nature, or even animals like Balaam's ass is one thing
Speaking to those created in His own
image is another. He has given us choices and he has
made us responsible for our choice so
that we reap the consequences one way or the other.
How would you suggest He speak His
will with regard to a polluted and sinful heart and have
it change by osmosis? Would that
not make us robot like?

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
What is a physical impossibility
for God? 

DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point,
Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to
attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that
sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.

The book you refer to DH is the
fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness
is not
a blessing; it also reveals to me
who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I
might add.

 I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does
things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the
impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would
prefer not to be.

How is that DH? I don't make up
things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He
has
done already; things he has recorded
in His Word by His Spirit.

You asked the question.What
is

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS

2006-03-19 Thread Dave





The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!

DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight
in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't
conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would
rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them. 

 I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of
false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply
remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let
blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I
know I feel that way sometimes.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You are not doing what the early church did
  
  DM brings up a great point.
  Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are you
are not doing what the early church did?
  
  I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of God
come upon the characters in the BoM etc.
  Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that the
LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City!
  And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound us
PUBLICLY! 
  DC 71 Wherefore, confound
your enemies; call
upon them to meet
you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful
their shame shall
be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons
against the Lord.
  nbsp9
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto youthere is no weapon that is formed
against you shall prosper;
  nbsp10
And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded
  
  The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!
  
  ARE THESE TRUE?
  1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things unto
my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could
not contend against me
  
  Jacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth
a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of Christ
  
  Jacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit
into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words.
  
  Mosiah 1219
And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby
they might have wherewith to accuse
him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood
all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all
their questions, and did confound them in all their words.
  
  Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers?
  Hel. 5:17
  nbsp17
And it came to pass that they did preach
with great power,
insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had
gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did
confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and
immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them
the wrongs which they had done.
  
  Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think he
could at least find some Women or Children?
  Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; ) 
  Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men,
yea, not only
men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have
words given unto them many times, which confound
the wise and the learned.
  
  BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost 116
pages of the original BoM?
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David
Miller wrote:
 Do you ever warn people about
 the FIRE of hell?

DAVEH wrote:
 No, I don't do much preaching, and when
 I doI prefer to be more positive in my
 approach.

I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You
are 
not doing what the early church did. :-)
David Miller 



-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

2006-03-19 Thread Dave





Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book
'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman

  -
Original Message - 
  From:
  Kevin Deegan 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity
that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to answer?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

2006-03-19 Thread Dave





I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith -
Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: Have you read it, Lance?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the
book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Kevin Deegan 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity
that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to answer?

Who do you, believe to be
God?
Father
Son
Holy Ghost


Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
Maybe you can help me out here
Dave H?

Who do you, believe to be God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost
 

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





DAVEH: The Lord has provided a way for us to avoid it.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  What is the
positive message about hell?
iz
  
  
  
  
  Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of 
  hell?
  
DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to
be more positive in my approach.
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?







DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always
respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not
willing to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled
to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I
believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in
his own puddle.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!
  
  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
You are right about that!
I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods
but you tell me you really have one.
Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say
you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do
I know LDS theology as well as you do?
  
DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend
the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
  - Original Message - 
From:
Kevin Deegan 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to
answer?

Who do you,
believe to be God?
Father
Son
Holy Ghost


Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
Maybe you can help me
out here Dave H?

Who do you, believe to
be God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost
 

  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you
tell me you really have one.

DAVEH: I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to understand
them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them at all, but
just skim them for the talking points. Do you not recall me saying
that I worship only one God?

Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you
have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. Do you
not recall the Paul saying

[1Cor8:5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

.then Paul goes on to explain.

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.

that to us there is but one God, the Father

[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and we are to worship the Father

the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and if there is any question as to the meaning, he goes
on to say the Father seeketh such to worship him.. The
Bible is pretty clear on this and makes it very simple to understand.
Once again, Kevin...this is what I believe. If you have a problem
understanding it, or comprehending itI don't know what else to
say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled your
thinking.



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods
but you tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say
you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Do
I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  


As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the
book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From:
  Kevin Deegan 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to
answer?
  
  Who do you, believe
to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM - confounded LDS

And as answwer to the dry ink of Helaman, The SP's preach with
great powerand LDS come forthe outside the gates of the temple confess
their sins and become Christians!
What does this say about the Power of Mormonism?

===

Where are the valiant ones like in Helaman?
LDS don't have even one that believes thier gods words inDC 71?

No one believes the promise of DC 71?
there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
ampnbsp10
And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded

I lift my voice on a regular basis right outside your solemn
assemblies and NONE can answer.
What does this say about the Power of Mormonism?
These verses are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS shudder!

DAVEH: Perhaps you are right, Kevin. I know I don't have much fight
in me at the moment. Perhaps the modern LDS people just aren't
conditioned to be contentious, which would explain why some would
rather avoid the SPers rather than confront them.

I would liken it to when Jesus was in court and faced with a lot of
false accusations. Given the chance to rebut the charges, he simply
remained quiet. Likewise, perhaps Mormons would rather just let
blithering idiots blither rather than jump into the mud with them. I
know I feel that way sometimes.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

You are not doing what the early church did

DM brings up a great point.
Since the LDS are a RESTORATION of the Early Church, why are
you are not doing what the early church did?

I checked the word CONFOUND and it seems to be the Spirit of
God come upon the characters in the BoM etc.
Yet it is evidenced today by a complete reversal being that
the LDS are confounded and speak not a word in Salt Lake City!
And all this while the LDS are Commanded to confound
us PUBLICLY!
DC 71 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon
them to meet you
both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made
manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons
against the Lord.
ampnbsp9
Veri ly, thus saith the Lord unto youthere is no weapon that is formed
against you shall prosper;
ampnbsp10
And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded

The tables have been turned! The SP's call the LDS
shudder!

ARE THESE TRUE?
1 Ne 17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said many things
unto my brethren, insomuch that they were confounded and could
not contend against me

Jacob 1 The words of his preaching unto his brethren. He confoundeth
a man who seeketh to overthrow the doctrine of Christ

Jacob 7:8 But behold, the Lord God poured in his Spirit
into my soul, insomuch that I did confound him in all his words.

Mosiah 1219
And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby
they might have wherewith to accuse
him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood
all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand
them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their
words.

Where are the GREAT LDS Preachers?
Hel. 5:17
ampnbsp17
And it came to pass that they did preach
with great power,
insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had
gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did
confess their sins and were baptized unto repentance, and
immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them
the wrongs which they had done.

Since the LDS god could not find any Men you would think
he could at least find some Women or Children?
Does this mean Missionary BOYS? Where are they? ; )

Alma 32:23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto
men, yea, not
only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have
words given unto them many times, which confound
the wise and the learned.

BTW wasn't the LDS god also CONFOUNDED when he lost
116 pages of the original BoM?

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David
Miller wrote:
Do you ever warn people about
the FIRE of hell?

DAVEH wrote:
No, I don't do much preaching, and when
I doI prefer to be more positive in my
approach.

I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You
are
not doing what the early church did. :-)
David Miller

--~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Yahoo! Travel
Find
great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?

2006-03-18 Thread Dave





DAVEH: LOL.That's a good one, Izzy!

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  

  
  
  
  OK Gary
- what NUT is telling you
all this?
  
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
  Sent: Saturday, March
18, 2006
6:48 AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Is Jesus
Christ Truth?
  
  
  
  OK Gary
- what NT
is
telling you all this?
  
  
  Even
the NIV says it was the chief
priests and pharisees who were worried about the body
  
  
  and so
Pilate told them to set up their
own watch ... what voices are you listenting to in CO?
  
  
  
  
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

2006-03-18 Thread Dave





I did think from previous encounters that you believed there
was no "literal" Hell.

DAVEH: Quite the contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical
separation from God and his love. The effect of such separation is
similar to how it would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage
dump of Jerusalem, except its effect would last forever.

Are you saying then that it is not a place?

DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven is located in a place, then
heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located. So
yes, hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does
his love emanate.

It is not physical?

DAVEH: Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of
fire and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel
who end up there. I do not believe people will literally be cast into
a burning lake of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, IMHO.

If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place,

DAVEH: Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem
irrelevant.

 Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where
you think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located?



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I am sorry
  I did think from previous encounters that you believed there
was no "literal" Hell.
  Are you saying then that it is not a place?
  It is not physical?
  When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with
physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion.
  
  If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, where
will those that suffer this mental anguish be?
  Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer?
  Can there be both joy  sorrow in the same place?
  Will they be in a physical place?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  you
have been decieved by the Devil

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the
contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer!

 I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my
position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally
being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject
Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many
believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such
separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their
shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good.

 Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my
attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled
this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago
in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only
looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I
don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical
passages to come to deter mine that those who mentioned hell in the
Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the
burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to
heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources
reaffirms the same conclusion.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Then according to your own book you have been decieved
by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want
to defend your position using material favorable to your
perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources
you've quoted plainly sh ow the symbolism of the terms used to describe
hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they
succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted
and analyze it from the premise I've put forth.

whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever

DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of
a time frame rather than a physical smoke.

which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment

DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery
that is in reality endless torment.

a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable
fire

DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility.
Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.

DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the
lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels

DAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important
and pertinent information, Kevin

+
35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it,
and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified
him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
brimstone, with the devil and his angels

37 And the only ones on wh

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

2006-03-18 Thread Dave







your view of hell is also shared by many 
Protestants.


DAVEH: That is interestingthanx!
Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of 
hell?

DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be
more positive in my approach.


David Miller wrote:

  Dave, for what it is worth, your view of hell is also shared by many 
Protestants.  In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone preacher 
by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes about hell pretty much 
just like you do.  Still, Jed will stand on campus and warn students loudly 
about "bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of FI-I-I-R-R-E!"  I was surprised 
the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached was 
figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of 
hell?  In other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to convey to people 
the danger of transgressing the commandments of God?

David Miller

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

2006-03-18 Thread Dave





DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather
than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  

-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

2006-03-18 Thread Dave





I don't make up things that paint God into any
corner;

DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God
can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our
perspective. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son
through the horror of dying on the cross in our behalf? Could not have
God simply snapped his fingers to make all right? Could not God have
destroyed Lucifer to prevent him from screwing up the world? 

 Yet God knew all this from before the foundations of the world, and
has presented us a plan to save us from Satan. Ponder why God's plan
is not simple, but involves a lot of pain and suffering by all
mankind. For a God who is all powerful, why need there be any pain and
suffering at all? Yes, Screwtape Letters is fantasy, Judy. But IMHO,
so are a lot of the things people believe about God.

 all He has to do is speak to the rock and it
will move just as He spoke the worlds
into existence.

DAVEH: Kinda makes one wonder why he allowed his Beloved Son to be
crucified. Wouldn't it have been more expedient to just speak his will be done?

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
What is a physical impossibility for
God? 

DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point,
Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to
attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that
sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.

The book you refer to DH is the fantasy
of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not
a blessing; it also reveals to me who it
is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I
might add.

 I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does
things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the
impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would
prefer not to be.

How is that DH? I don't make up things
that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has
done already; things he has recorded in
His Word by His Spirit.

You asked the question.What is a
physical impossibility for God?and the obvious
answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God
create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so

is a physical impossibility for God,
Judy?

Only if God were a man with limitations
but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is
limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it
will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence.

 I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. 

His son was born under the Mosaic Law
but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water
and commanding a storm along with
rebuking death.

Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think
God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways
of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his
Adversary.

God is transcendent DH and his adversary
is well aware of who is boss.

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  
  
  Just this morning I read this
interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...
  
  KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone
imagery that is in reality endless torment. 
  a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
  
  DAVEH: More imagery that is
physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas 
  mental torment can go on forever.
  
  So tell me - What is a physical
impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had 
  promised to
Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God
who was 
  able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and
afterward kept themin the desert for
40yrs 
  feeding them with manna from
heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from 
  swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun
for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water
  The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles
in front of Jezebels' chariot and 
  had the ravensfeed
him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. 
  
  Tell me - what would be too difficult
for a God like this and how can the
feeble efforts of man explain 
  Him?
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  
Conor: Might we hear from you
on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.

Lance

  

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, L

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 cannot pass away, that they who
are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall
be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his
angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire; prepared for them;
and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose
flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

which once again portray the imagery by using two simple
words...is as.

 So KevinAs you can plainly see, each instance you mentioned
below (excepting the sons of perdition--DC 76: 36 --,
which is a tangential discussion relating to another category that I'm
not addressing in this post) is clearly a symbolic representation of
hell. I'm not sure why you wanted to bring the BoM and DC into
the discussion though, as I would think your strong point would be the
Bible. If you can't find a single instance in the Bible to support
your heavily vested assumption, then you are going to have a hard time
convincing me that your theory is correct, even though many theologians
and popular thought may agree with you.


Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Jacob 6:10 And according to the power of justice, for justice
cannot be denied, ye must go away into that lake of fire and brimstone,
whose flames are unquenchable, and whosesmoke ascendeth up forever
and ever, which lake of fire and brimstone is endless torment.
  
  Alma 5:51-52 And also the Spirit saith unto me, yea, crieth unto
me with a mighty voice, saying: Go forth and say unto this
peopleRepent, for except ye repent ye can in nowise inherit the
kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold,
the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the
fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable
fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it.
  
2 Nephi 15-17And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have
passed from this 
  first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal,
they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel;
and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to
the holy judgment of God. And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the
Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass
away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they
who are filthy shall be filth still; wherefore, they who are filthy are
the edevil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting
fire, prepared for them; and their gtorment is as a lake of fire
and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and
has no end. O the greatness and the ajustice of our God! For he
executeth all his words, and they have gone forth out of his mouth, and
his law must be fulfilled.
  
  DC 63: 17 Wherefore, I, the Lord, have said that the
fearful, and the bunbelieving, and all liars, and whosoever loveth and
maketh a lie, and the whoremonger, and the sorcerer, sha ll have
their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is
the second death.
  
  DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake
of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels
  
  Alma 14: 14 Now it came to pass that when the bodies of those
who had been cast into the fire were consumed, and also the records
which were cast in with them, the chief judge of the land came and
stood before Alma and Amulek, as they were bound; and he smote them
with his hand upon their cheeks, and said unto them: After what ye
have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be
cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?
  
  Jacob 6: 10 And according to the power of ajustice, for justice
cannot be denied, ye must go away into that lake of fire and brimstone,
whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever
and ever, which lake of fire and brimst one is endless torment.
  
  1 Ne. 15: 35 And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful
hell of which I have 
  spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the
final state of the souls of 
  men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out
because of that djustice of 
  which I have spoken.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
Hadn't thought about it, Kevin. Post a passage and let's examine it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Is it figurative in the BoM too?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  NOTE to all TTers: I had
attempted to post several responses that were rejected. Most of them
were about the previous situation, which is now less than pertinent, so
there is no point in posting them. However, a couple of them may be of
interest.


DAVEH: As far as I've been able to discern, every instance that hell 
is referred to in the Bible, it is in a figurative sense.using the 
burning trash dump as the only (with the exception of worms eating the 
innards, and excruciating thirst

Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question





DAVEH: ModeratorModerator.HELP keep G under control. Now
he's using canada without
capitalizing it! (AndI don't think canada
was meant to have a c
on both ends!!!) 
=-O 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  beon guard, o canada
  
  
  On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:18:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  
Dave[H]:You appear rather
exercised over this matter. Why is this such a 'hot button' issue for
you?..
||
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





you have been decieved by the Devil

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the
contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer!

 I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my
position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally
being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject
Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many
believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such
separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their
shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good.

 Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my
attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled
this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago
in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only
looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I
don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical
passages to come to determine that those who mentioned hell in the
Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the
burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to
heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources
reaffirms the same conclusion.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Then according to your own book you have been decieved
by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to
defend your position using material favorable to your
perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources
you've quoted plainly show the symbolism of the terms used to describe
hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they
succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted
and analyze it from the premise I've put forth.

whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever

DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a
time frame rather than a physical smoke.

which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment

DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery
that is in reality endless torment.

a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire

DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility.
Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.

DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of
fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels

DAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important
and pertinent information, Kevin

+
35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it,
and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified
him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
brimstone, with the devil and his angels

37 And the only ones on wh om the second death shall have any power;
+

.This is referring to a small but special category of those who
(denied the Holy Spirit after having received it)
are referred to as sons of perdition. While this represents a tangent
thread which is not relevant to our discussion, please note vs 37 which
differentiates them from all the others as he only ones on whom
the second death shall have any power. This may not make sense
Kevin, but these are not the folks of whom we usually think about when
we talk about hell.

After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people,
that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?

DAVEH: Interestingly, you've quoted the chief judge (the antagonist)
who was chiding Alma  Amulek and while doing so, you have assumed
that the chief judge quoted Alma correctly. However Kevin, that is an
errant assumption, as the below quote shows...

+
[Alma 12:17] Then is the time when their torments shall be as
a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up
forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down
to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of
Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.
+

...Alma clearly taught that their torments were as a,
indicating that Alma's explanation of fire and brimstone
is a symbolic representation of hell.

and their gtorment is as a lake of fire and brimstone

DAVEH: Apparently you've got a serious computer virus, Keving
is infecting your posts! 

 The wording here suggests an analogy

torment is as a lake whose flame ascendeth up
forever and ever and has no end

...Again, clear symbolism that cannot be literally true. The two
words is as plainly show this to be an analogy.

sha ll have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone, which

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





What is a physical impossibility for God? 

DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point,
Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to
attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that
sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.

 I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does
things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the
impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would
prefer not to be. You asked the question.What
is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious
answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God
create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so
is a physical impossibility for God,
Judy?

 I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation.
Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God
could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of
which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his
Adversary.

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Just this morning I read this interaction
between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...
  
  KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery
that is in reality endless torment. 
  a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
  
  DAVEH: More imagery that is physically
an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas 
  mental torment can go on forever.
  
  So tell me - What is a physical
impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had 
  promised to
Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God
who was 
  able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and
afterward kept themin the desert for
40yrs 
  feeding them with manna from heavenand
keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from 
  swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun
for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water
  The God who energized
His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels'
chariot and 
  had the ravensfeed
him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. 
  
  Tell me - what would be too difficult for
a God like this and how can the feeble
efforts of man explain 
  Him?
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  
Conor: Might we hear from you on
this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.

Lance

  


-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] The gates of hell?





The gates of hell?

DAVEH: How do you perceive the gates of hell, DavidM?  From my
perspective, as hell is used here, it relates to hades and the gates of
hell is that barrier that makes imprisons us at death. IOWwhen we
die, we our spirit is effectively trapped by death, unable to return to
heaven. In vss 17  18 the Lord effectively tells Peter that he
is building (gathering) his church (those who are called by the
Lord--his followers) with revelation, and that death (gates of hell)
can't keep his followers from progressing beyond death.

That means we are to advance into hell and beat up the devil and his
minions.

DAVEH: If the hell spoken by the Lord in Mt 16:18 is hades, then why
would you conclude that passage implies that we should advance to the
unseen world to beat up the devil and his minions?

I'm greatly inspired by this message to knock down the kingdom of
Satan and advance the kingdom of God. 

DAVEH: If my above analysis of the gates of hell is correct,
do you have any other passages in support of your above contention?


David Miller wrote:

  
  
  Excellent point, Judy! Paul's admonition to the carnal
Corinthianswas repent, grow up, stop being babies, put the sinners out
of the church, walk in love toward one another, etc. No way did he
coddle them with just living as an example, like the much over quoted
St. Francis is quoted, "preach the gospel... use words when
necessary." Words are the sword of the spirit. Without speaking the
unadulterated Word of God, the kingdom of God cannot be advanced.
  
  Last night I heard a great message from a pastor in my
congregation. Marcuswas talking about going on the offensive against
the devil. He talked about how the devil left Jesus for a season, and
that when we have victory over him, he will leave us for a season.
When that happens, we should be walking around looking for him and
wanting to beat him up some more. When we find him, we should be
saying, "there you are devil, come over here, I've been looking for
you," and then BAM, hit him hard and take him down. When we are
hitting the devil, he should not be leaning forward, but leaning back
as we hit him and hit him, until he finally runs away. I cannot help
but think about the words of Jesus about how the gates of hell will not
prevail against us. The gates of hell? That means we are
to advance into hell and beat up the devil and his minions. I'm
greatly inspired by this message to knock down the kingdom of Satan and
advance the kingdom of God. Hallelujah!
  
  David Miller.
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hello


DAVEH:   Welcome to TT, Conor!   I do hope you enjoy your stay here

   BTWHave you ever had any experience moderating an email 
forum??? ;-)




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Hello Everyone,
I recently joined truth talk and just wanted to introduce myself.  My name
is Conor Mancone.  I'll be graduating from the University of Florida in a few
short months with two degrees, one in physics and another in astronomy.  For
those of you who care for a little background, I would tell you that I have
been religious my whole life.  I was raised Catholic by my mother, and have
always believed and followed God.  When I arrived at college, I began learning
a lot more about my faith, as well as reading the Bible.  Now adays, I'm happy
to call myself christian, and I follow Jesus with all of my heart (or, to be
completely truthful, with as much of my heart as I can).  I look forward to
getting to know all of you and talking with you.
-Conor
 



--
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] The gates of hell?





The gates of hell 
refer to the strongholds of Satan in this world system,
DAVEH: As you may know, I don't quite see it that way. In support of
my position, let me offer...

[Wis 16:13] For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to
the gates of hell, and bringest up again.

...Reading that with your perspective, it would suggest the Lord
would lead one to sin in a sense. I think The gates of hell makes
much more sense when considered from my perspective of dying, and then
being saved from that death--both physical and spiritual.

David Miller wrote:

  Dave, I see the gates of hell as a metaphor in the same way as "let the dead 
bury the dead" is a metaphor.  There is spiritual warfare going on as 
described in the book of Daniel (esp. chapters 10  11).  The gates of hell 
refer to the strongholds of Satan in this world system, and when Jesus says 
that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (the church), he means 
that the community of believers, when believing God and walking in faith, 
conquer sin, death, and everything associated with it.  Hades / Sheol is 
that domain of the dead, and the gates that guard it are no match for the 
church.  The church brings resurrection life and righteousness and joy, just 
the opposite of what hell is all about.

David Miller

- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] The gates of hell?

The gates of hell?

DAVEH:  How do you perceive the gates of hell, DavidM?   From my 
perspective, as hell is used here, it relates to hades and the gates of hell 
is that barrier that makes imprisons us at death.  IOWwhen we die, we 
our spirit is effectively trapped by death, unable to return to heaven.   In 
vss 17  18 the Lord effectively tells Peter that he is building (gathering) 
his church (those who are called by the Lord--his followers) with 
revelation, and that death (gates of hell) can't keep his followers from 
progressing beyond death.

That means we are to advance into hell and beat up the devil and his 
minions.

DAVEH:   If the hell spoken by the Lord in Mt 16:18 is hades, then why would 
you conclude that passage implies that we should advance to the unseen world 
to beat up the devil and his minions?

I'm greatly inspired by this message to knock down the kingdom of Satan and 
advance the kingdom of God.

DAVEH:  If my above analysis of the gates of hell is correct, do you have 
any other passages in support of your above contention?


David Miller wrote:
Excellent point, Judy!  Paul's admonition to the carnal Corinthians was 
repent, grow up, stop being babies, put the sinners out of the church, walk 
in love toward one another, etc.  No way did he coddle them with just living 
as an example, like the much over quoted St. Francis is quoted, "preach the 
gospel... use words when necessary."  Words are the sword of the spirit. 
Without speaking the unadulterated Word of God, the kingdom of God cannot be 
advanced.

Last night I heard a great message from a pastor in my congregation.  Marcus 
was talking about going on the offensive against the devil.  He talked about 
how the devil left Jesus for a season, and that when we have victory over 
him, he will leave us for a season.  When that happens, we should be walking 
around looking for him and wanting to beat him up some more.  When we find 
him, we should be saying, "there you are devil, come over here, I've been 
looking for you," and then BAM, hit him hard and take him down.  When we are 
hitting the devil, he should not be leaning forward, but leaning back as we 
hit him and hit him, until he finally runs away.  I cannot help but think 
about the words of Jesus about how the gates of hell will not prevail 
against us.  The gates of hell?  That means we are to advance into hell and 
beat up the devil and his minions.  I'm greatly inspired by this message to 
knock down the kingdom of Satan and advance the kingdom of God.  Hallelujah!

David Miller.



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hello





DAVEH: Could that have been a typo, G..perhaps you meant.. mirth

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  myth 
  
  [jt insists that'truth is Jesus
Christ';
  Conor says he is a
college student,not Jesus Christ;
  therefore, both quite
rationally  implicitly,(a) 'liar is whom'?] 
  
  
  On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:49:11
-0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
thanks for sharing
aboutyourself
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hello





DAVEH: Hmmm.apparently another typo, G. I suspect you
meant.nyet

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nyet

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  ..yet
  
  On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:44:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
onecould allow for
that, Bro,partic since it ain't a copyrighted comment :)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006
20:34:19 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: Could
that have been a typo, G..perhaps you meant.. mirth
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

myth 

  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hello







DAVEH: Was that a typo, Bishop? Perhaps you meant..Don't let cynicism
(on this forum) effect your sense of humor.  ;-) 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Welcome, Conor to the deep side. You have caught us in a good
moment. Enjoy your stay. I am sure we would encourage you to
contribute. Don't let criticism (on this forum) effect your sense
of humor. 
  
  jd
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question





DAVEH: Responding to Kevin.It seemed to me that he posted the
entire text of each song.

 Responding to KevinI think you are wrong about that. If you
wrote a book, the law would allow me to quote very small portions of it
in a review I might post. However, if I were to post the whole book,
even though I were not making any money from it, you would be harmed
because a reader would be able to know what I was thinking without
buying the book from you.

 FurthermoreI think the music industry is particularly sensitive
to protecting copyrighted material right now. ButAs always, I may
be wrong  :-) 

Kevin Deegan wrote:
It is my understanding that you may post - print PORTIONS
not complete works.
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DaveH
asks Gary:
 You've repeatedly posted copyright material
 on TT. Doesn't that violate copyright restrictions?

I'm not a lawyer, Dave, but my understanding is that there is no
problem 
with copying portions of an author's material for noncommercial use.
The 
copyright laws are meant to protect the author from Gary going out and 
trying to make money off of the author's work. There also would be
another 
problem, and that is if Gary's activity somehow hurt the author's
sales. 
For example, if people did not need to buy the author's work because
Gary 
provided it to them free of charge. Posting lyrics to songs on
TruthTalk 
does not damage the author from my perspective. If anything, it mi ght 
provide free advertising for him, maybe even help his sales if people
get 
interested in the author's work because of what Gary has posted. The
bottom 
line is that one must look at whether or not any damage is done to the 
author when copying his material.

David Miller

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux





Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and 
curable. 
DAVEH:   Did you/anybody happen to watch 60 MINUTES a few days ago?  
It had a very interesting segment on homosexuality.   And as I
understood the story, they seemed to be neutral in their
examination.which was inconclusive, but pointed out there are no
simple answers as to whether it is genetic or environmentally
influenced.  



David Miller wrote:

  

I have to address this issue often when I preach on the homosexual deception 
that is sweeping across this world.  I find myself needing to communicate my 
love for the homosexual person but my hatred for the sin of homosexuality. 
How can I do this?  Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and 
curable.  It is a sin problem that is solved by faith in Jesus Christ.  I 
have no hatred in my heart toward most of those who consider themselves to 
be a homosexual.  In fact, sometimes I am confronted by homosexual virgins, 
and I have to tell them that from my perspective they are not yet homosexual 
if they have never had any sexual relations with other men.  God does not 
condemn a person based upon their inner desires or temptations, but rather 
he condemns them for sinful actions.
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell





DAVEH: Hadn't thought about it, Kevin. Post a passage and let's
examine it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Is it figurative in the BoM too?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  NOTE
to all TTers: I had attempted to post several responses that were
rejected. Most of them were about the previous situation, which is now
less than pertinent, so there is no point in posting them. However, a
couple of them may be of interest.


DAVEH: As far as I've been able to discern, every instance that hell 
is referred to in the Bible, it is in a figurative sense.using the 
burning trash dump as the only (with the exception of worms eating the 
innards, and excruciating thirst) literal imagery to which the folks 
back then could relate.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Actually, if we take it literal, can we not argue that hell is
a 
 burning trash dump somewhere outside Jerusalem? 
 
 jd 

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
"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.

  
  
   
   Yahoo! Mail
  Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
  

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question

DAVEH: Thanx for posting that link, Kevin. There are several points
they make that would seem pertinent to posting copyrighted song
lyrics

Is the new work merely a copy of the original? If it is simply a
copy, it is not as likely to be considered fair use.

Is the work factual or artistic? The more a work tends toward artistic
_expression_, the less likely it will be considered fair use.

The more you use, the less likely it will be considered fair use.
Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it
approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is likely to be considered
an unfair use of the copyrighted work.
Is the particular portion used likely to adversely affect the author's
economic gain? If you use the "heart" or "essence" of a work, it is
less likely your use will be considered fair.

What Can Be Copied?
A chapter from a book (never the entire book).
An article from a periodical or newspaper.
A short story, essay, or poem. One work is the norm whether it comes
from an individual work or an anthology.

The same copyright protections exist for the author of a work
regardless of whether the work is in a database, CD-ROM, bulletin
board, or on the Internet.
If you make a copy from an electronic source, such as the Internet or
WWW, for your personal use, it is likely to be seen as fair use.
However, if you make a copy and put it on your personal WWW site, it
less likely to be considered fair use.
The Internet IS NOT the public domain. There are both uncopyrighted and
copyrighted materials available. Assume a work is copyrighted.

Music, lyrics, and music video:
up to 10 percent of the work but no more than 30 seconds of the music
or lyrics from an individual musical work.

1996-2004 University of Maryland University College
3501 University Blvd. East
Adelphi, Maryland 20783 USA

...Hope I didn't violate any copyrights quoting the above! :-(

Kevin Deegan wrote:

Go to your favorite copy store tell them you want to copy one
page of this copyrighted booklet.
See what happens

Copyright protects the right to copy and or distrubute among
other things
What we have been discussing is called "FAIR USE"
The more you copy the less likely it will be considered FAIR
In addition to be FAIR it must offer some other value than being
just a copy. EG Educational or commentary
http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.html

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH:
Responding to Kevin.It seemed to me that he posted the entire text
of each song.

Responding to KevinI think you are wrong about that. If you
wrote a book, the law would allow me to quote very small portions of it
in a review I might post. However, if I were to post the whole book,
even though I were not making any money from it, you would be harmed
because a reader would be able to know what I was thinking without
buying the book from you.

FurthermoreI think the music industry is particularly sensitive
to protecting copyrighted material right now. ButAs always, I may
be wrong :-)

Kevin Deegan wrote:
It is my understanding that you may post - print PORTIONS
not complete works.

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DaveH asks Gary:
You've repeatedly posted copyright material
on TT. Doesn't that violate copyright restrictions?

I'm not a lawyer, Dave, but my understanding is that there is no
problem
with copying portions of an author's material for noncommercial use.
The
copyright laws are meant to protect the author from Gary going out and
trying to make money off of the author's work. There also would be
another
problem, and that is if Gary's activity somehow hurt the author's
sales.
For example, if people did not need to buy the author's work because
Gary
provided it to them free of charge. Posting lyrics to songs on
TruthTalk
does not damage the author from my perspective. If anything, it mi ght
provide free advertising for him, maybe even help his sales if people
get
interested in the author's work because of what Gary has posted. The
bottom
line is that one must look at whether or not any damage is done to the author when copying his material.

David Miller

-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell





Are you saying I am thoughtLESS?

DAVEH: Lance is probably thinking less than you think, Kevin!  ;-) 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Are you saying I am thoughtLESS?
  Regular questions are intended to provoke answers 
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question





DAVEH: I didn't deal with BD personallymy nephew did. It seems
to me that if anybody would request permission or asking whether or not
posting it on TT is in violation, it should be the guy posting the
copyrighted material.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  yes
  
  [E.g., you know Bob Dylan
to some degree (didn't you say he's got one of your leather jackets?);
  perhaps write, through
his internet site,and askhim to check out the TT archives for a
violation
  ( let us know what
he says:)]
  
  
  On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:24:38
-0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"[is]
copyrightedmaterial.. freely available [through [EMAIL PROTECTED]?]"


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The Secular versus the Religious





What pray tell is an EVangelical prior to 1900??

DAVEH: HmmIs this a test? If so, I should think the
answer is simple...PreVangelical.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  LOL That is FUNNY!
  What pray tell is an EVangelical prior to 1900??
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] Hell

2006-03-14 Thread Dave Hansen


NOTE to all TTers:  I had attempted to post several responses that were 
rejected.  Most of them were about the previous situation, which is now less 
than pertinent, so there is no point in posting them.  However, a couple of 
them may be of interest.


DAVEH:As far as I've been able to discern, every instance that hell 
is referred to in the Bible, it is in a figurative sense.using the 
burning trash dump as the only (with the exception of worms eating the 
innards, and excruciating thirst) literal imagery to which the folks 
back then could relate.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Actually,  if we take it literal,  can we not argue that hell is a 
burning trash dump somewhere outside Jerusalem? 
 
jd
 


--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


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

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

[TruthTalk] Reply to Kevin

2006-03-14 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH:   Thanx for both answers, Kevin!  With a little thinking, I 
should have been able to discern both without asking.

Kevin Deegan wrote:



   Praise The Lord!
  
 No I am not leaving.

 */Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

 *Man this is where the rubber meets the road*

 DAVEH:   Does that mean you are leaving TT, Kevin???

 *PTL*

 DAVEH:   Please define.  (I did not find it in the INNGLORY list
 of acronyms.)

 Kevin Deegan wrote:

  
  
 I am sure this is gonna help me be a better christian TODAY!
 *Man this is where the rubber meets the road*.
 *PTL*!
  

-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] Copyright Question

2006-03-14 Thread Dave Hansen

DAVEH:   Hey G, I'm rather curious about something you've been doing 
recently...You've repeatedly posted copyright material on TT.  
Doesn't that violate copyright restrictions?   If so, does that leave 
the list owner vulnerable to legal action for letting such to continue?  
It would sure be nice if copyrighted material were more freely 
available, but from what I've heard about the music industry, they tend 
to be rather protective of their territory.  And it is not just music
posts, as sometimes others post copyrighted material.  Perhaps we all 
should be a bit more circumspect when posting copyrighted material!


Further comments would be appreciated (by me, anyway!)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



*..There's always some new stranger sneakin' glances
*
*..
/Billy, you're so far away from home./*
B Dylan :: Copyright © 1972 Ram's Horn Music 
  
 


--
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] Mormons in Heaven

2006-03-12 Thread Dave





DAVEH: LOL.At least you have maintained your sense of humor,
Judge Dean!  :-D 

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  cd: If you find yourself in the afterlife surrounded by
Mormons and smell of sulfur in the air -then you are not in Heaven-and
the glow is not the sun setting;-)
  
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
3/12/2006 1:36:42 AM 
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller


I am a surprised, I must admit, to hearing of
Dean's admission that he thinks of this forum as some sort of mission
opportunity forthe SP ing crowd. 

DAVEH: That has always been the intention of some. That it conflicts
in part with the reasons DavidM established TT seems to go over the
head of many. I'm sure DavidM would hope some evangelistic successes
be achieved here, but I never had the impression that was his prime
concern. If I'm wrong with that assessment, I hope he posts a
clarification.

I kind of feel like I died and went to heaven !!

DAVEH: LOL..When that day does arrive, perhaps you'll find more
Mormons there than some might expect! :-)




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  It is quite clear that the presense of the
Mormon population on TT has nothing to do with the current problems of
TT. I am a surprised, I must admit, to hearing of Dean's
admission that he thinks of this forum as some sort of mission
opportunity forthe SP ing crowd. This reminds me of ajoke a
baptist brother told me about the Church of Christ in heaven. I won't
bore you with full joke, but the punch line was "Not so loud - they
think they're the only ones up here." 
  
  Being here on TT - I kind of feel like
I died and went to heaven !!
  
  jd

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-12 Thread Dave





We see many Mormon
conversion in SLC.

DAVEH: As was recently asked of you..Perry do you think Judge Dean is speaking the truth here?




  

Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?



DH -- it's time we stop meeting this way. You over there
with your dialogue with Kevin and me with whoever will listen. two
old farts fighting nappy time !! 

How long have you known Deegan and Moore and how much closer
to convertin are you now -- after hearing them "preach" for low these
many years? 

jd
cd: Careful John- Was Christ's
giving the wrong mesasage in not converting Judas who as in his mists
for three years- We see many Mormon conversion in SLC. Satan
has also been around the gospel for an awful long time-and can also
quote scripture.What was your Point again?

--
Original message -- 
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Do you see Jesus  Paul
using your Dictionary definition of Christian?
  
DAVEH: Some time ago, it was me (LDS in general) being accused by
TTers of changing definitions to suit our (LDS) needs. Now it seems
you want to do the same thing, Kevin. If you don't want to use the
conventional dictionary definition of Christian, then it seems prudent
to give us (TTers) your own definitionplease.
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  Do you see Jesus 
Paul using your Dictionary definition of Christian?

Under this definition then, a
decieved one who follows ANTI Christ is truly a Christian!

1) He truly Believes he is worshipping Jesus Christ
2) He truly believes the one he is following was sent by God
3) He follows his teachings and example

But in reality he is a hell bound sinner.
Help me contextualize, this apparent contradiction

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Judy
wrote:
 What reason would anyone on TT have
 to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also
 a Christian?
  
Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:
  
Christian
noun (plural Christians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus
Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to
follow his teachings and example
  
If we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who
believes in the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my
perspective , Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This
does not mean that they have the right belief system, or that any of
them will be saved. It simply places them in the Christian category, as
a religious sect that is centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the
Savior sent by God to save humanity. There are false sects within
Christianity, and I think the Mor mon sects are among them.
  
David Miller.

  


  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH is a pagan ?????

2006-03-12 Thread Dave





who's statue is on
top of your temple in SLC?

DAVEH: The angel Moroni, who is depicted as heralding the return of
our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Didn't look like Jesus
to me?

DAVEH: Have you seen Jesus?

Jesus spoke of a literal burning hell

DAVEH: ??? Do you have Scriptural references to back that up, Dean?

My Jesus said that
there were no marrying or giving of marriage in Heaven

DAVEH: Perhaps you have misunderstood Jesus, Dean. That marriages
would not take place in heaven is not disputed. Whether or not those
relationships exist in heaven is another concept that you are not
addressing.

What did you Jesus
say on this subject?

DAVEH: The Lord suggested that marriages that are authoritatively
sealed in mortality

[Mt 18:18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.

..will remain in effect in heaven. Furthermore, Jesus
warned.

[Mk 10:9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.

so Dean, do you really think God does not want man and wife to
be together in heaven?

My Jesus said that
there is only one God in heaven

DAVEH: That many Christians describe as one of three forms, seemingly
ignoring that fact that each of those forms is referred to as God. 

What did you Jesus
say again?

[Ex 18:11] Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in
the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

[Eph 4:5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and
in you all.

It seems obvious that there is a plurality of Gods, but there
is only one to whom we should worship.

My Jesus say that he
was the way to heaven

DAVEH: With stipulations.

Your religion say
that in order to enter heaven one must come through theTemple/ J.
Smith-Why?

DAVEH: Why..When
seeking the Lord, would you not expect to find him in the Lord's House?

Your Jesus is not
the Christ of the bible

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Dean.

 you DavH are a
Pagan-Therefore no apology will be given

DAVEH: I'm sorry to hear that, Judge Dean. Then I will request that
Judge Moore reprimand you for using a personal attack, which in TT is
breaking the ad-hom rule.

if you can prove me
wrong them of course I will indeed apologize to you

DAVEH: Breaking the ad-hom rule is evidence of your wrongness, Judge
Dean. I await the apology.

 good challenge
makes one stronger ( or course this can also break a Weak Man'
DavH)-which are you Iron or clay?

DAVEH: Neither.Wouldn't you say that I am somewhat like
Kevin..a cream puff?!?!?! 
:-) 



  
an
Idol worshiper a Pagan

DAVEH: As I see it Dean, I don't worship idols. So for you to call me
a pagan would be a false accusation. Do I get an apology for making
that false representation?
cd; Really-Then
pray tell me who's statue is on top of your temple in SLC?
Didn't look like Jesus to me? My Jesus spoke of a literal
burning hell-What did you Jesus describe hell as being? My
Jesus said that there were no marrying or giving of marriage in Heaven-What
did you Jesus say on this subject? My Jesus said that
there is only one God in heaven-What did you Jesus say
again? My Jesus say that he was the way to heaven-
Your religion say that in order to enter heaven one must come
through theTemple/ J. Smith-Why? Your Jesus is not the
Christ of the bible DavH-therefore you are worshipping
anotherChrist- therefore you DavH are a Pagan-Therefore no
apology will be given.-as I only apologize for speaking/doing
wrong not for truth Dave.But if you can prove me wrong them of
course I will indeed apologize to you-so far you have failed to
do so-try harder-a good challenge makes one stronger ( or course
this can also break a Weak Man' DavH)-which are you Iron or clay?

if not then can I wittiness on TT?

DAVEH: Your wittiness on TT surely brings a smile to many,
Judge Dean! :-) 
cd: Ahh-But I have been hearing the echo of my voice
on this site. You forget I am not alone in this indever and can do
nothing without my redeemer. Fools will alway mock truth-right up to
the point they stand before God -then the laughter turns to great
trembling. By the way I have told you that I did not like the name
Judge Dean-yet you continue to do so- How is this not Ad. Hom? You also
forget that I have not been removed from the Job of Moderator as yet
Dave-better stop-consider this your second warning too behave.

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
  
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH is a
pagan ?
  
  
  
  They'd be of their father the devil - at least
that's how I understand it. jt
  
  cd; But we cannot tell them that here Judy-Wonder if
we can call aSodomite a queer on TT? Or can we call a Homo a Sodomite
without offending him?How about calling a Homo- Gay? How about calling
a idol worshipper an Idol worshiper

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-11 Thread Dave

 think the
Mormon 
sects are among them.

David Miller.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Believers in bondage to sin?

2006-03-11 Thread Dave



DAVEH:   Nothing impossible or even difficult about that, Kevin.  Ever 
hear of a boxing/wrestling ring?  A ring definitively implies a circle, 
and such a ring is almost always viewed as a square when hosting boxers.



Square circles KD
 



--
~~~
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





The dictionary is not the discerner of who/what is a Christian.

DAVEH: Who does authoritatively make that distinction in your eyes,
Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe that is why we are not to go to the World for answers.
  The dictionary is not the discerner of who/what is a
Christian.
  The World has no answers.
  
  All the soothsayers at Jackson Square were made an open show
open shame for all to see.
  They know not at what they stumble!
  
  Just more FALSE PROPHETS, I agree it is a serious matter.
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





the sad part is that
one claiming to be a Christian (Blain/ DavH)has leadthe believerto
this error.

DAVEH: Which believer
on TT do you think either of us (LDS) has led astray, Judge Dean?

 if the Mormons were
allowed to dwell among Christians

DAVEH: And your solution is.to not allow Mormons on TT?

God's spirit knew and
gave this Prophecy

DAVEH: To whom did he give this Prophecy, Judge
Dean? DavidM is the only self proclaimed prophet on TT of who I am
aware. I do not recall him suggesting that God gave him this Prophecy, so do you know of other prophets on TT?
Who receive said this
Prophecy?

moresoulsmust be
harmed before a change is made.

DAVEH: Which TTers have been harmed, and what change do you propose?

This is going to get
real personal-real soon

DAVEH: It seems to me that you opened that door, Judge Dean. Do you
not think calling me a pagan made it real personal???



  
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller



Maybe that is why we are not to go to the World
for answers.
The dictionary is not the discerner of who/what
is a Christian.
The World has no answers.

All the soothsayers at Jackson Square were made
an open show open shame for all to see.
They know not at what they stumble!

Just more FALSE PROPHETS, I agree it is a
serious matter.'
cd : Yeah and the
sad part is that one claiming to be a Christian (Blain/ DavH)has
leadthe believerto this error. This act of leadership by a Mormon
doesn't get more Pagan than this -no small wonder the evil spirit
behind the Mormon's wouldn't want to be identified as such-It can cause
more harm if it appears as an Angle of light. Reminds me of the first
time I can on this site and warned David that this event would happen
if the Mormons were allowed to dwell among Christians without a
clear understanding of what they are-and wasignored-this was before I
even knew what a Mormon was and only preached at intersections-but God's
spirit knew and gave this Prophecy.It seems that history must
repeat itself andmoresoulsmust be harmed before a change is made.Question
for you Kevin: Is aPagan by any other name still a Pagan? And my
brother in Christ-This is going to get real personal-real soon.


Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  - Original Message
- 
  
  
From: Kevin
Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 3/10/2006 7:33:15 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kinder
Gentler God would not call names - pagan ?



Blaine
has posted a number of times refering to Astrology..
What
do you think of such?
cd: It goes much deeper than that Bro.
Kevin-David Miller was actually having Blaine do readings for Him-gave
him his birth dated and even comment on how actuate the reading
were-have you ever heard of the likes from a man of God? No different
then what we saw in front of the Catholic off Bourbon street remember?
Seems that some believers won't request God'sprediction on the future
or even ask Him they have to inquire of spirits.Here is God's take on
the matter.


Isa 47:13 Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now
the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that
shall come upon thee. 

Isa 47:14
Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall
not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm
at, nor
fire to sit before it. 

Isa 47:15 Thus
shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast labored, even thy
merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter;
none shall save thee. 


Lev 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I
am the LORD
your God. 
cd: Has David defiled himself ? My suggestion
is for repentence to be given-in sackcloth and ashes if need be-Serous
matter.




PA'GAN,
n. [L. paganus, a peasant or countryman, from pagus, a village.] A
heathen; a Gentile; an idolater; one who worships
false gods. This word was originally applied to the inhabitants of the
country, who on the first propagation of the christian religion adhered
to the worship of false gods, or refused to receive christianity, after
it had been received by the inhabitants of the cities. In like manner,
heathen signifies an inhabitant of the heath or woods, and caffer, in
Arabic, signifies the inhabitant of a hut or cottage, and one that does
not receive the religion of Mohammed. Pagan is used to distinguish one
from a Christian and a Mohammedan. 
PA'GAN,
a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a person who worships false
gods. 
1.
Pertaining to the worship of false gods.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH is a pagan ?????

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





an Idol worshiper a
Pagan

DAVEH: As I see it Dean, I don't worship idols. So for you to call me
a pagan would be a false accusation. Do I get an apology for making
that false representation?

if not then can I
wittiness on TT?

DAVEH: Your wittiness
on TT surely brings a smile to many, Judge
Dean!  :-) 

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH is a pagan ?
  
  
  
  They'd be of their
father the devil - at least that's how I understand it. jt
  
  cd; But we cannot
tell them that here Judy-Wonder if we can call aSodomite a queer on
TT? Or can we call a Homo a Sodomite without offending him?How about
calling a Homo- Gay? How about calling a idol worshipper an Idol
worshiper or an Idol worshiper a Pagan.I mean- what can we call
those that do such thing-Christians?Do we have to refer to all as the
Godly-as not to offend them and the owner of this site? Can we as
Christians even express the Truth of what category God places the
infidels on this site-No! As the name infidels can offend the
infidel.We are commanded by God to carry his message all over the
world-but we not allowed to do so on TT? I say if one is placed into a
category them let the one that spoke the truth prove this is what the
person is-and if the shoe fits let them wear it-at least then one will
know in which he stands in the judgement.That is by no means harming
others-on the contrary it is helping others-and I for on e would be
afraid of the God that commanded His to do suc
h if I stood against such a command-anywhere/anytime. That is the exact
reason I did not hinder Sarah from preaching in SLC.One should wait and
hear if the preachers is speaking truth-and if so be silent. In my
short life I have learned that God's word does indeed shed light on
groups and individuals-it exposed the works of darkness for what they
are-can my light shine on TT-if not then can I wittiness on TT?If
not-am I not directed to go to the next town after shaking the dust off
my feet as a testimony AGAINST them? Yes I am Judy!
  
  
  Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and
show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. 
  
  
  
  On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:57:44 -0800 (PST) Kevin
Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  
So would they be called Pagan christians?
Idol worshipping christians?
Non christian christian?


Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Because some
ppl teach that you can cling to pagan ideas and still be a Christian since everyone was included in the
"incarnation" right JD?
  
  DHcanmakethe
point but let me chime in here, as well. 
  "You .. are a
pagan" is not the same as "Your beliefs are pagan" 
  Those who
haveeyes, let them see, Lord. jd
  
  
  On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:47:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

You DaveH
are a Pagan.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom

Why is attacking your genuinely held
beliefs an attack on your person?
Seriously; can you
expound? KD






-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  You
DaveH are a Pagan.
  DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom
  
  Why is attacking your genuinely held
beliefs an attack on your person?
  Seriously; can you expound?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You
called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated
the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the
second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian

DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?

You DaveH are a Pagan.

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.

he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ

DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?

Get over
it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack

DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?

state a
petition to impeach me

DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.

I am not
Judge Dean

DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





Do you see Jesus  Paul using
your Dictionary definition of Christian?

DAVEH: Some time ago, it was me (LDS in general) being accused by
TTers of changing definitions to suit our (LDS) needs. Now it seems
you want to do the same thing, Kevin. If you don't want to use the
conventional dictionary definition of Christian, then it seems prudent
to give us (TTers) your own definitionplease.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Do you see Jesus 
Paul using your Dictionary definition of Christian?
  
  Under this definition then, a
decieved one who follows ANTI Christ is truly a Christian!
  
1) He truly Believes he is worshipping Jesus Christ
2) He truly believes the one he is following was sent by God
3) He follows his teachings and example
  
But in reality he is a hell bound sinner.
Help me contextualize, this apparent contradiction
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
Judy wrote:
 What reason would anyone on TT have
 to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also
 a Christian?

Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:

Christian
noun (plural Christians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus
Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to
follow his teachings and example

If we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who
believes in the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my
perspective , Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This
does not mean that they have the right belief system, or that any of
them will be saved. It simply places them in the Christian category, as
a religious sect that is centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the
Savior sent by God to save humanity. There are false sects within
Christianity, and I think the Mormon sects are among them.

David Miller.
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





with whoever will listen

DAVEH: LOLDo you suppose anybody is really listening,
Bishop!  :-) 

How long have you known Deegan and Moore 

DAVEH: I joined TT less than a year after DavidM founded it. I think
it was a year or two later that Carroll joined, but I could be off on
that. Kevin came in a bit later, as I remember.

how much closer to
converting are you now -- after hearing them "preach" for low these
many years

DAVEH: I think I am right on the edge.  ;-) 

 Seriously John, I made the statement when I came in to TT that I
was LDS and did not join TT with the intention to be persuaded to leave
Mormonism. I wanted everybody to know up front that not hear to play
that game with them--that I'm interested in pursuing another religion.
I have made my position clear several times, but despite doing so some
TTers feel compelled to try to convert me away from Mormonism anyway.
Apparently some have gotten their noses bent out of shape when they
find out that I do not want to subscribe to their theory that LDS
theology is wrong. I think DavidM understood me loud and clear after
our initial discussions. Others are not nearly so perceptive, and
seem to get frustrated that their illogical tactics fail to persuade me
to change.

 What some have said is that they pray for me. I am sincere in
telling you I do appreciate that, as I am sure they pray for my eternal
welfare, and I do not take that lightly. Contrary to what I'm sure
they expect, I do believe that (the answer to) their prayers are one
reason I feel no compulsion to change. In fact, I believe their
prayers have been answered to the contrary.  Despite there being many
unflattering things posted about LDS theology and myself, I remain
quite comfortable in my LDS rooted beliefs of Jesus and his Father in
Heaven. While this may rankle some, I feel that I should attribute
that at least in part to the prayers of some TTers! Soif you've
prayed for meI sincerely THANK YOU. It reinforces my belief in the
power of prayer.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  DH -- it's time we stop meeting this way. You over there with
your dialogue with Kevin and me with whoever will listen. two
old farts fighting nappy time !! 
  
  How long have you known Deegan and Moore and how much closer
to convertin are you now -- after hearing them "preach" for low these
many years? 
  
  jd
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Do you see Jesus  Paul
using your Dictionary definition of Christian?

DAVEH: Some time ago, it was me (LDS in general) being accused by
TTers of changing definitions to suit our (LDS) needs. Now it seems
you want to do the same thing, Kevin. If you don't want to use the
conventional dictionary definition of Christian, then it seems prudent
to give us (TTers) your own definitionplease.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Do you see Jesus 
Paul using your Dictionary definition of Christian?
  
  Under this definition then, a
decieved one who follows ANTI Christ is truly a Christian!
  
1) He truly Believes he is worshipping Jesus Christ
2) He truly believes the one he is following was sent by God
3) He follows his teachings and example
  
But in reality he is a hell bound sinner.
Help me contextualize, this apparent contradiction
  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Judy
wrote:
 What reason would anyone on TT have
 to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also
 a Christian?

Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:

Christian
noun (plural Christians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus
Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to
follow his teachings and example

If we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who
believes in the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my
perspective , Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This
does not mean that they have the right belief system, or that any of
them will be saved. It simply places them in the Christian category, as
a religious sect that is centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the
Savior sent by God to save humanity. There are false sects within
Christianity, and I think the Mormon sects are among them.

David Miller.
  

  

-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





I am a surprised, I must admit, to hearing of Dean's admission that
he thinks of this forum as some sort of mission opportunity forthe SP
ing crowd. 

DAVEH: That has always been the intention of some. That it conflicts
in part with the reasons DavidM established TT seems to go over the
head of many. I'm sure DavidM would hope some evangelistic successes
be achieved here, but I never had the impression that was his prime
concern. If I'm wrong with that assessment, I hope he posts a
clarification.

I kind of feel like I died and went to heaven !!

DAVEH: LOL..When that day does arrive, perhaps you'll find more
Mormons there than some might expect! 
:-) 



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  It is quite clear that the presense of the Mormon population on
TT has nothing to do with the current problems of TT. I am a
surprised, I must admit, to hearing of Dean's admission that he thinks
of this forum as some sort of mission opportunity forthe SP ing
crowd. This reminds me of ajoke a baptist brother told me about
the Church of Christ in heaven. I won't bore you with full joke, but
the punch line was "Not so loud - they think they're the only ones
up here." 
  
  Being here on TT - I kind of feel like I died and went to
heaven !!
  
  jd
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
the sad part is
that one claiming to be a Christian (Blain/ DavH)has leadthe
believerto this error.

DAVEH: Which believer
on TT do you think either of us (LDS) has led astray, Judge Dean?

if the Mormons were
allowed to dwell among Christians

DAVEH: And your solution is.to not allow Mormons on TT?

God's spirit knew
and gave this Prophecy

DAVEH: To whom did he give this Prophecy,
Judge Dean? DavidM is the only self pr
oclaimed prophet on TT of who I am aware. I do not recall him
suggesting that God gave him this Prophecy, so do you know of other prophets on TT?
Who receive said this
Prophecy?

moresoulsmust be
harmed before a change is made.

DAVEH: Which TTers have been harmed, and what change do you propose?

This is going to
get real personal-real soon

DAVEH: It seems to me that you opened that door, Judge Dean. Do you
not think calling me a pagan made it real personal???




  
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Astrology-Miller



Maybe that is why we are not to go
to the World for answers.
The dictionary is not the discerner
of who/what is a Christian.
The World has no answers.

All the soothsayers at Jackson
Square were made an open show open shame for all to see.
They know not at what they stumble!

Just more FALSE PROPHETS, I agree
it is a serious matter.'
cd :
Yeah and the sad part is that one claiming to be a Christian
(Blain/ DavH)has leadthe believerto this error. This act of
leadership by a Mormon doesn't get more Pagan than this -no small
wonder the evil spirit behind the Mormon's wouldn't want to be
identified as such-It can cause more harm if it appears as an Angle of
light. Reminds me of the first time I can on this site and warned David
that this event would happen if the Mormons were allowed to dwell
among Christians without a clear understanding of what they are-and
wasignored-this was before I even knew what a Mormon was and only
preached at intersections-but God's spirit knew and gave this
Prophecy.It seems that history must repeat itself andmoresoulsmust
be harmed before a change is made.Question for you Kevin: Is
aPagan by any other name still a Pagan? And my brother in Christ-This
i s going to get real personal-real soon.


Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  -
Original Message - 
  
  
From: Kevin
Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 3/10/2006 7:33:15 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Kinder
Gentler God would not call names - pagan ?



Blaine has posted a number of times refering to Astrology..
What do you think of such?
cd: It goes much deeper than
that Bro. Kevin-David Miller was actually having Blaine do readings for
Him-gave him his birth dated and even comment on how actuate the
reading were-have you ever heard of the likes from a man of God? No
different then what we saw in front of the Catholic off Bourbon street
remember? Seems that some believers won't request God'sprediction on
the future or even ask Him they have to inquire of spirits.Here is
God's take on the matter.


Isa
47:13 Thou art wearied in
the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly
prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these
things that shall come upon
thee. 

Isa 47:14 Behold, they shall be

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: JOHN: An extended discussion on Person/Persons/Personhood including you, BT and, DM

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





 Man this is where the rubber meets the road

DAVEH: Does that mean you are leaving TT, Kevin???

 PTL

DAVEH: Please define. (I did not find it in the INNGLORY list of
acronyms.)

Kevin Deegan wrote:
I am sure this is gonna help me be a better christian
TODAY!
   Man this is where the rubber meets the road.
   PTL!
  
  

-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] David Miller 2

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





the red is much easier to read , for me

DAVEH: And therein lies the problem, Bishop. If I make my posts are
easier to read, then it is much more likely you will be convinced of my
arguments. HenceJudge Dean must think you will soon be converted
to Mormonism, and he finds that possibility to be offensive.  ;-) 

 BTW.You are close to converting, aren't you Bishop? (There is
always room for another Bishop in the Church.)  :-) 



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Actually, the red is much easier to read , for me.
  
  jd
  
  --
Original message -- 
From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


cd: David -Why is it
not an offence for DaveH to alter my words? I wrote in blue on a 10
scale-if you will read the below my words were altered by DaveH to red
and farther down to a size 12 scale-this is an obvious attempt to make
me sound harsh while Davehkept his wording at common black size 10
scale?





  -
Original Message - 
  From:
  Dave
Hansen 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent:
3/9/2006 12:33:23 PM 
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose
-ModeratorcommentADHOM*
  
  
  I called you a Mormon-to which you
do not deny-You called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing
so you separated the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and
tagging me with the second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself
to be non Christian
  
DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?
  
  You DaveH are a Pagan.
  
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.
  
  he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ
  
DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?
  
  Get over it the truth is not an Ad.
Homein attack
  
DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?
  
  state a petition to impeach me
  
DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.
  
  I am not Judge Dean
  
DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?
  
  by your standards isn't that Ad.
Homein attacking
  
DAVEH: ??? I thought we were playing the game by your standards,
Judge Dean! Hence.Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack according
to you.
  
  I will have to go to the
Moderator
  
DAVEH: I've not had much luck with him, but I suspect he will listen
to you.
  
  

  
  
  Are you implying Dean called you such
NAMES?
  
DAVEH: I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin..I say/demand again "
Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your temple Pagan!!!
  
  cd: Hey- that is Judge Moore to you buddy.
You are the one that put a separation between Christianity and
Mormonism-in you comment -and when I declare that by doing so this is
Paganism you state crying .
  My
Comment:
  Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are
you just plain mean?
  Your
reply:
  So let me ask you, Dean..Is it the
Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
  I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You
called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated
the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the
second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian-To
be non-Christian is to be a Pagan. You DaveH are
a Pagan.The fact that you do not follow
the teaching of Jesus Christ is a deeper conformation of that
point.
  
  
  Get
over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack- or state a petition to impeach me.I am not Judge Dean -by your standards isn't
that Ad. Homein attacking-better stop or I will have to go to the Moderator.Hey -Judge
Moore Moderate this!
  
  
  
Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  Are you implying Dean called you such
NAMES?

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dave
why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups?
  
DAVEH: Hwell, I hadn't thought about dissecting
you guys, but it is a tempting thought you've given me! ;-) 
  
  Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you
just plain mean?
  
DAVEH: LOL..Sometimes I think SPers are their own worst enemy!
You have the power to push the button that bars me from TT, Dean. If
you do such, I don't think your problems will all go with me. I've
been called a pagan here, a snake in the grass, satan's
messenger boy

Re: [TruthTalk] David Miller 2

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





No one has pronounced his actual condemnation to Hell

DAVEH: Perhaps not recently, but I suspect there are more than a few
TTers who would believe it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:
No one has pronounced his actual condemnation to Hell.
That is the domain of Pretenders such as POPES PROTESTANTS 
POTENTATES!
Maybe you have been hanging around with that crowd too long!
It makes you shudder at a word from the seat.
One could make pronouncements all day long only God has the power to
CAST into Hell. I am not interested in anyone going there (as is God
BTW) I spend my life trying to keep folks outa there!
All UNBELIEVERS will be cast into Hell 
And Jesus said UNLESS YOU REPENT YOU SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH
See Rev 20 God's statement on the subject.
  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


Whether DH is a true believer is
known onl y to God. All of us are entitled to critique his theological
framework. These are not the same. (Experience/articulation)

  -
Original Message - 
  From:
  Judy Taylor 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Cc:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Sent:
March 10, 2006 09:03
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] David Miller 2
  
  
  Yes, I do. What reason would
anyone on TT have to assume thata lifelong 
  Mormon is also a Christian?
  
  On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:12:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  
DH's language in no way represents an acknowledgement that he is NOT
a Christian. 
You created the outcome by
reading into his post that which he did not intend. 
Did any TT reader see this
otherwise?
 
 
  From: Lance Muir 
   
   
Again,
public response to a public post: FWIW I'm totally with DH on this one.
What Dean attempted was a less than clever attempt to be clever.
 

  
cd:If honest and truthare not
important to you then feel free to do so Lance-just know you will be
with him in the judgement also-side by side.
  

  
From:
Dean Moore 
  
  
  cd: David -Why is it not an offence for DaveH to alter my
words? I wrote in blue on a 10 scale-if you will read the below my
words were altered by DaveH to red and farther down to a size 12
scale-this is an obvious attempt to make me sound harsh while
Davehkept his wording at common black size 10 scale?

  
  
  


- Original Message - 
  
From: Dave Hansen

  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
Sent: 3/9/2006 12:33:23 PM

  
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
***Respose -ModeratorcommentADHOM*
  


I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You
called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated
the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the
second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian

DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?

You DaveH are a Pagan.

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.

he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ

DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?

Get over
it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack

DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?

state a
petition to impeach me

DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.

I am not
Judge Dean

DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?

by your standards isn't that Ad.
Homein attacking

DAVEH: ??? I thought we were playing the game by your standards,
Judge Dean! Hence.Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack according
to you.

I will
have to go to the Moderator

DAVEH: I've not had much luck with him, but I suspect he will lis

[TruthTalk] Astrology

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





Astrology.
What do you think of such?


DAVEH: I do not subscribe to it, nor do I find it of much interest.
However KevinI think Blaine tried to show that Christianity has
some roots in it. So if one wants to criticize Blaine for his beliefs
about astrology, is that same person willing to criticize Christianity
for having astrologically related beliefs?

 And if you think Blaine is a pagan because of his astrology related
beliefs, then do you believe a Christian is also pagan because he
believes in some of the pagan rooted elements of the Bible?

 Now before you go to great lengths to involve me in an astrology
thread, I am not a supporter of the topic. You should engage Blaine if
you want to discuss it further, as I neither want to appear to support
astrology, nor do I want to speak for Blaine. I'm just pointing out
the double standard issue that Christians have to face when denouncing
astrology. I'll copy this to Blaine in case he wants to respond to
this threadwhich I will change to reflect the new direction this
discussion is taking.

  
  Blaine has posted a number of times refering to Astrology.
  What do you think of such?
  
  PA'GAN, n. [L. paganus, a peasant or countryman, from
pagus, a village.] A heathen; a Gentile; an idolater;
one who worships false gods. This word was originally applied to the
inhabitants of the country, who on the first propagation of the
christian religion adhered to the worship of false gods, or refused to
receive christianity, after it had been received by the inhabitants of
the cities. In like manner, heathen signifies an inhabitant of the
heath or woods, and caffer, in Arabic, signifies the inhabitant of a
hut or cottage, and one that does not receive the religion of Mohammed.
Pagan is used to distinguish one from a Christian and a Mohammedan.
  PA'GAN, a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a person
who worships false gods.
   1. Pertaining to the worship of false gods.

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
OK let me chime in I will restate it for Dean
DH's BELIEFS are Pagan!

DAVEH: OK Kevinspecifically in what way do draw that conclusion?
What is it that you think I believe that qualifies as a pagan belief?
First, you may want to define what you think pagan means so we will
have a common starting point.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  "You .. are a pagan" is not the
same as "Your beliefs are pagan" 
  
  For the sake of Lance (IYO)
  
  OK let me chime in I will restate it for Dean
  DH's BELIEFS are Pagan!
   
  
   
  So does the BIBLE practice ADHOMS?
   
  AND name names!
   
  
   
  Sop let me get this straight Paul should NOT have said:
   
  Acts 13 Elymas the sorcerer ...
   
  PAUL SAYS: And
said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of
the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not
cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
   
  
   
  SHOULD BE
   
  And said, O full of all subtilty
beliefs and all beliefs of mischief, thou child with beliefs
of the devil, thoubelieving againstall righteousness, wilt
thou not cease believing to pervert
the right ways of the Lord? (what
VERSION would this be? )
   
  Since Paul was FU LL of the Holy Ghost (IMO VS 9)when he
said this does that mean God called Elymas A DEVIL? Is God ADHOM? Did
God call him a PERVERT?
   
  Just wonderin...
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
   
  

 
You DaveH are a Pagan.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom
 

 
Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs
an attack on your person?
 
Seriously; can you expound? KD
 

 

 
DHcanmakethe point but
let
me chime in here, as well. "You .. are a pagan" is not the same as
"Your beliefs are pagan" 
 

 
Those who haveeyes, let them
see, Lord. 
 
jd
 



 

 
--
Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  You DaveH are a
Pagan.
  DAVEH: ; I respectfully disagree,
Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom
   
  
   
  Why is attacking your genuinely held
beliefs
an attack on your person?
   
  Seriously; can you expound?
   
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
   
  I
called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian
to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as
receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian)
you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian

Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn]

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





I preach
against Mormonism if that includes you so be it.

DAVEH: So why did you feign offense when I suggested that the guy in
SLC who offered a picture of President Hinckley to tear up might have
learned such tactics from SPers? If you didn't facilitate the actions
of that guythen I wasn't talking about you, Kevin. I was
suggesting that the guy's actions may have been a result of what he
learned from SPers in SLC at Conference time. Those SPers who were not
making fools of themselves probably had no influence on the guy.

  
  KD says He is right here ask
him! 
  The request strikes me as a
little psycho when we can just ask.
  I think you confuse my posts
by LDS leaders as remarks pertaining to your held beliefs. I preach
against Mormonism if that includes you so be it. I do not preach
against DH.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
I can not discern Deans meaning I guess you would have to
ask
him. Should I be responsible for everyone elses beliefs now?

DAVEH: You seemed to have little hesitation claiming to know what I
believe, so why you would feign not understanding Dean's meaning seems
strange, since you fellas are on the same side of the fence.


Again I have no desire to see you depart from TT.

DAVEH: Yes, you've said that beforethank you. As I remember, it
was Dean who felt that I should not be given ground here on which to
stand. In the past, he has made it clear that I should be jettisoned
from TT. I do not recall you making any such comments though.

You are always looking for "common ground" I think I can agree
with the following:

DAVEH: I find that interesting. I did not think you would see it
quite the same way as OP stated it. Hm.I learn something
every day!

Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
  

  DAVEH: Thanx Kevin. Hmmm...what
do you think Judge Dean meant by h is comment.I guess I will Get DavH
off you back? His below explanation lacks
logical credibility, IMO.
  
  I don't have my crystal ball handy so I can not discern
Deans meaning I guess you would have to ask him. Should I be
responsible for everyone elses beliefs now?
  Any guess from me would be just that. Do you want me to
guess,
I can do that if you want.
  
  Again I have no desire to see you depart from TT.
  Obviously I do not agree with your belief system and am
vocal
about it as I should be.
  
  Someone else put it this way:
  "If I should hear a man advocate the erroneous principles he
had imbibed through education, and oppose those principles, some might
imagine that I opposed to that man, when I am opposed to every evil and
erroneous principle he advances." - Brigham Young, - Journal of
Discourses 7:191 
  
  You are always looking for "common ground" I think I can
agree with the following:
  " If we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God
that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will
sustain you in the privileges, guaranteed in the Great Charter of
American Liberty; we ask from you the generosity - protect us in the
exercises of our religious rights - convince us of our errors of
doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments. or by the
word of God, and we will ever be grateful for the information, and you
will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments
in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness
which you may see enveloping their minds." - Orson Pratt, Th e
Seer, p. 15-16 
  
  The Bible says:
  Gal
4:16 Am I therefore become
your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  I
do not want you gone Dave.

DAVEH: Thanx Kevin. Hmmm...what do you think Judge Dean
meant by his comment.I guess I will Get DavH off you back?
His below explanation lacks logical credibility, IMO.

Ido not complain about you

DAVEH: From Dean's previous comment.I guess I will Get DavH off you back...
it seemed as though the Judge was implyin g you were bothered by my
presence on TT. If that is not the case, I appreciate the
clarification.

You have no problem with the draconian rules of your leaders?

DAVEH: Do you have any problems with the draconian rules of
the Bible, Kevin? The Lord gave the Law, and how well we keep it is
somewhat a measure of our love for him. Do you see it the same way,
Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:
    
  I do not want you gone Dave.
  Please don't misrepresent me I have never said or
implied
such I am not a pope protestant or potentate!
  Banishment and worse is a Popish - Protestant
distinctive!
  This is in their belief system
  I have told you before I am not of the RC nor their
offspring the protestants!
  I do not chase people down the street

[TruthTalk] IDOL Worship Pagan

2006-03-11 Thread Dave





Since I and I believe God sees you as a IDOL Worshipper that would
make you a PAGAN

DAVEH: HmmYou almost made it sound like God is firmly on
your side in this matter, Kevin. You posted the definition of pagan
as..

PA'GAN, n. [L. paganus, a peasant or countryman, from
pagus, a village.] A heathen; a Gentile; an idolater;
one who worships false gods. This word was originally applied to the
inhabitants of the country, who on the first propagation of the
christian religion adhered to the worship of false gods, or refused to
receive christianity, after it had been received by the inhabitants of
the cities. In like manner, heathen signifies an inhabitant of the
heath or woods, and caffer, in Arabic, signifies the inhabitant of a
hut or cottage, and one that does not receive the religion of Mohammed.
Pagan is used to distinguish one from a Christian and a Mohammedan.
PA'GAN, a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a person
who worships false gods. 1. Pertaining to the worship of false
gods.

...and then you claim that I am an IDOL Worshipper. What IDOL
do you think I worship, Kevin? 

  
  Since I and I believe God sees you as a IDOL Worshipper that
would
make you a PAGAN. Is that ADHOM?
  
  The God of Mormonism is a FALSE god a pretender. Those
that
worship it are worshipping a work of Joe Smiths hands.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  OOPS!
just noticed the SUBJECT so I reposted  changed

DAVEH: I was wondering when somebody would bring that up!

Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs an
attack on your person?

DAVEH: I don't recall him attacking my beliefs. He merely judged
me a a Pagan
and then posted it as a fact, which seems to be a personal attack. It
is an inaccurate judgment, and as it was presented it repr esents a
false accusation..does it not meet the definition of the ad-hom
rule of TT?

Kevin Deegan wrote:
OOPS!
just noticed the SUBJECT so I reposted  changed
  
  Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
You DaveH are a Pagan.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom

Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs
an attack on your person?
Seriously; can you expound?


Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I
called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian
to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as
receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian)
you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian
  
DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?
  
  You DaveH are a Pagan.
  
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.
  
  he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ
  
DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?
  
  Get over it
the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack
  
DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?
  
  state a
petition to impeach me
  
DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.
  
   FONT face=Arial
color=#ffI am
not Judge Dean
  
DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?
  
  by your standards isn't that Ad.
Homein attacking
  
DAVEH: ??? I thought we were playing the game by your standards,
Judge Dean! Hence.Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack according
to you.
  
  I will
have to go to the Moderator
  
DAVEH: I've not had much luck with him, but I suspect he will listen
to you.
  
  

  
  
  Are you implying Dean called you
such NAMES?
  
DAVEH: I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin...I
say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your
temple Pagan!!!
  
  cd: Hey- that is Judge Moore to you buddy.
You are the one that put a separation between Christianity and
Mormonism-in you comment -and when I declare th at by doing so this is
Paganism you state crying .
  My
Comment:
  Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or
are
you just plain mean?
  Your
reply:
  So let me ask you, Dean..Is it the
Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
  I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You
called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated
the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon)

Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn]

2006-03-11 Thread Dave






What could his intentions really be?

DAVEH: I don't know. I'm only hearing one side of the story, and
without knowing his inner thoughts and circumstances, it would be
difficult for anybody to judge him.

if you were to impune those present or SP's
would tha t include me?

DAVEH: Only if you were guilty. Just because you are one of the SPers
does not mean that you are a bad one, if that is the proper way
to put it.

why you do not see this as ADHOM.

DAVEH: Because I did not name you as one teaching the guy to do what
he did. If you feel guilty by association, then that is your
problem. Maybe I am wrong, but if DavidM had been there, I can't
imagine him doing anything to influence the guy to do what he did.
Though DavidM is certainly a SPer, if he didn't do anything, he ain't
guilty, even though he may associate with those who are guilty. I hope
that makes some sense

Since it is one of the rules, we are stuck with it

DAVEH: Apparently, rules really bother some SPers. If a moderator
doesn't want to follow one of the rules, and then makes up rules to
keep somebody else from posting material the moderator doesn't
likedoesn't that qualify as a double standard?

I would not want you to think thatI believe that the ends
justify the means.

DAVEH: Thanx for the clarification, Kevin. Sometimes it seems that
you do believe that way when you post LDS related material and draw
inaccurate conclusions about it.

I am not a Lying Protestant! 

DAVEH: Hmmm...putting it that way, one might conclude you are
claiming to be a truthful Protestant.

  
  DAVEH: Is that not one of the possibilities to consider
when a person seems seems sensitive to an issue?
  
  Thanks Dave, you are one of the only people on TT that really
shows such understanding. As you have correctly figured, I am a very
sensitive guy, I am just a real cream puff!
  
  Well if one followed the thread you were responding to Dean as
to
his comment that a Mormon had encouraged SP's to tear pics of the LDS
'prophet', He even supplied the pics. AS it was implied he was not the
nicest guy in Salt Lake. What could his intentions really be?
Would he
qualify as let me borrow the term "snake"? He betrays his own religion.
  
  "DH .Sounds like something he
learned from SPers."
  Seeing as I was present and I am a SP and very possibly PUBLIC
ENEMY #2 as to the LDS, if you were to impune those present or
SP's
would tha t include me? I don't see why you do not see
this as ADHOM.
as an aside, I am actually against such a rule and think it is foolish
we do more talk about ADHOM than any other subject. As you might have
noticed I posted yesterday some verses thatshow that Paul under
fullness of the Holy Ghost attacked the person of Elymas. There is a
use for labels and it is just that; to IDENTIFY. The Erroneous use of
labels is in attempting to use them as a part of a "logical" argument.
  Since it is one of the rules, we are stuck with it. I
see the intent of
the rulesince who wants to read O yeah yur mutha wears combat boots
(excuse me PLEAZE, keep your hat on, Gary) 
  
  As to whyI might seem sensitive.
  I would not want you to think thatI believe that the ends
justify the means.
  
  That there is anything such as
  
  "lying f or the lord" LDS
  
  "Theocratic War Stategy" (lying) Jehovah
Witness 
  see Watchtower mag 1957 5/1 "Use Theocratic War Strategy"
  http://p089.ezboard.com/fsabdiscussionboardfrm15.showMessage?topicID=332.topic
  http://www.freeminds.org/psych/whylie.htm
  http://www.letusreason.org/JW8.htmLying
to the public
  
  "lie of necessity" Roman CATholic http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
  
  
  Just Lies RC - Reformed Catholic- Reformed
Confederate Theocrats - Protestants
  http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-20-04.asp"So
then, from this brief analysis of the Old Testament, there are times
when it is appropriate to lie" Gary Demar (RC)
  http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/cc_2.pdf
  
  The commandment
does not say that "thou shalt never tell a lie."
  
  "Rahab risked
everything
in order to follow the laws of God, including telling Lies"
John Whitehead The Theology of Christian Resistance 1983 
  
  "But does God require
us
to tell the truth at all times? Such a proposition is highly
questionable". R J Rushdoony Institutes of Biblical Law 1972 p
543
  
  
  I am not a Lying Protestant!
  
  There is something seriously perverted  wrong with anyone
that thinks it is RIGHT to Lie The long philosophic discussions of
the circumstances were lying may be employed, are very illuminating
shows of the darkness enveloping these minds. Doing wrong is NEVER
RIGHT! The following is not "HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE"!
  THOU SHALT NOT LIE
  
  What would give folks such thoughts?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Guilt?
What would give you such thoughts?

DAVEH: Is tha

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-10 Thread Dave







DAVEH: Sure Kevin. You are trying to make the term pagan fit your
perceived need to define somebody (me) in a way that differentiates me
from you.

 If you want to use the term pagan as you've defined it below, it
seems one prominent condition needs to be met to define one as a
pagan. That he worships false gods.interestingly, that they used
the term gods as in plural.

 Since Mormons worship the only true God, they would view themselves
not as pagan at all. However, could that not lead one to ponder
whether those who worship a trinitarian God might be considered Pagan? 

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Due to your suggestion on Christian in the dictionary, I now
have a problem because to remain consistent I check the definition of
Pagan. Since a Pagan can not be a Christian then one can not logically
be a member of both groups. 
  This poses a problem of inconsistency, can you rectify
this problem? 
  
  Should we just use selective definitions? Perhaps use just
the kinder gentler definitions on a consensus basis?
  
  PA'GAN, a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a person
who worships false gods.
   1. Pertaining to the worship of false gods.
  
  

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Judy
wrote:
 What reason would anyone on TT have
 to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also
 a Christian?

Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:

Christian
noun (plural Christians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus

Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to 
follow his teachings and example

If we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who
believes in 
the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my
perspective, 
Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This does not mean
that 
they have the right belief system, or that any of them will be saved.
It 
simply places them in the Christian category, as a religious sect that
is 
centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the Savior sent by God to
save 
humanity. There are false sects within Christianity, and I think the
Mormon 
sects are among them.

David Miller.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Is a Mormon a Christian?

2006-03-10 Thread Dave





DAVEH: DangNow I have to adopt G's habit of replying to his own
posts!

 First, let me apologize for posting this prematurely. I started a
rough draft and got as far as I did when I decided to spell check it
before I went to bed. I quickly hit what I thought was the SPELL CHECK
button and instead managed to hit the SEND button! I did this before
finishing my draft, and prior to rereading it before posting it.
Somy below thoughts are just things that were going through my head
and I put them down as quickly as I could type without thinking it
through. Nor was I finished. Soif what you read below bothers
you, please forgive me, as I don't know if I would have posted what I
wrote below or not. Even if I were to think what I wrote was
appropriate (and what I had intended to write), it certainly does not
represent my complete thinking on this matter. I was about to go to
bed, and figured I'd complete my thoughts tomorrow (and probably
editing them quite a bit in the process) before posting them.
So...before any TTers jump the gun in responding to what I wrote, I'd
request you wait until I finish this up, as I would like to elaborate
on what I was thinking at the time of my erroneous post.



Dave wrote:

  
  
  
  
DAVEH: Sure Kevin. You are trying to make the term pagan fit your
perceived need to define somebody (me) in a way that differentiates me
from you.
  
 If you want to use the term pagan as you've defined it below, it
seems one prominent condition needs to be met to define one as a
pagan. That he worships false gods.interestingly, that they used
the term gods as in plural.
  
 Since Mormons worship the only true God, they would view themselves
not as pagan at all. However, could that not lead one to ponder
whether those who worship a trinitarian God might be considered Pagan? 
  
Kevin Deegan wrote:
  
Due to your suggestion on Christian in the dictionary, I
now
have a problem because to remain consistent I check the definition of
Pagan. Since a Pagan can not be a Christian then one can not logically
be a member of both groups. 
This poses a problem of inconsistency, can you rectify
this problem? 

Should we just use selective definitions? Perhaps use just
the kinder gentler definitions on a consensus basis?

PA'GAN, a. Heathen; heathenish; Gentile; noting a
person
who worships false gods.
 1. Pertaining to the worship of false gods.


  
  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Judy
wrote:
 What reason would anyone on TT have
 to assume that a lifelong Mormon is also
 a Christian?
  
Following is how my dictionary defines a Christian:
  
Christian
noun (plural Christians)
1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus
  
Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to 
follow his teachings and example
  
If we accept the secular definition of believer as somebody who
believes in 
the teachings of a particular religious faith, then from my
perspective, 
Mormonism falls into this category of Christian. This does not mean
that 
they have the right belief system, or that any of them will be saved.
It 
simply places them in the Christian category, as a religious sect that
is 
centered on the idea that Jesus Christ is the Savior sent by God to
save 
humanity. There are false sects within Christianity, and I think the
Mormon 
sects are among them.
  
David Miller.








  
  
  -- 
 ~~~
 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.

  


-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?







DAVEH: Is that a Mormon girl trying to give you a karate chop,
Dean?!?!?!  ;-) 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn






gave us copies to tear up in
from of the Temple-but we didn't do so.

DAVEH: Thank you for that measure of respect,
Dean.

I guess I will Get DavH off you
back

DAVEH: ??? Does that mean you have your finger on the EXECUTE DavH button, Judge Dean?
Has Kevin been complaining about me bothering him lately? I don't
recall saying anything to him recently that would be
disrespectful..But if he wants me gone, it is within your power to
carry out his wishes.

Group Please keep off the Ad.
Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention

DAVEH: How considerate of you, Judge Dean! I guess I should fee
privileged that you are willing to devote all your attention to me to
the exclusion of other TTers. It does seem a bit selfish though.as
you seem to want to smoke all the Ad.
Hom. grass yourself!!! Just don't inhale though,
as you might choke on it..  
=-O 

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  cd: Ouch:-) Hey I have that
picture in mutli's-The High Priest that Ruben hung out (what was his
name?)with gave us copies to tear up in from of the Temple-but
we didn't do so. Kevin I guess I will Get DavH off you back
for a while as soon as David shows of-or better yet I might as well get
stated on that:-)So I will be busy for a while-Group Please keep off
the Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention.
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn






That wasn't not done
out of respect. 

DAVEH: Hmm...Do you have any respect for Mormons, Dean?

Sure sounded like a set
up to me? You agree DaveH?

DAVEH: Hmmm again.Sounds like something he learned from SPers.

Would a Mormon High
Priest do such?

DAVEH: None that I know would do such. Hmmm a third
time..Perhaps he was a SPer claiming to be MHP. If he was indeed a
true Mormon, I believe his actions were inappropriate, and I will
apologize to you in his behalf.  However, I dislike drawing
conclusions without hearing the his side of the story.

Dave you need to learn
to separate the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.

DAVEH: That's a mistake I've seen other moderators use as an excuse
for improper behavior. Do you believe that separating Judge Dean from Judge More
absolves you from responsible behavior? If Judge Dean posts an ad-hom,
would not be reasonable to expect Judge More admonish
him? If not, then would Judge
More be practicing a double standard?

 Perhaps I do have trouble separating the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.when
I hear you say something to the effect..

Group Please keep
off the Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention

I pretty much hear Judge
More's voice, despite your claim that it is
Judge Dean's lips that are moving. I can't see which side of the mouth
you are speaking from, Judge Dean. I can only read your words and
interpret them as coming from one who intends to takeno prisoners.

All I meant was
that we are headed to our usual takeno prisoners debate.

DAVEH: You are the one who called me a pagan, Judge Dean. If you
wish to refuse to apologize for making that ad-hom remark, and if Judge
Moore does not call you on the carpet for posting blatant ad-homs, then
would Judge Moore be justified in giving me the boot if I merely
referred to Judge Dean's ___(fill in the blank) practices? Your takeno prisoners comment
seems to imply TT is not big enough for both of us, Judge Dean. Is
that where you want to go with this?


  
gave us copies to
tear up in from of the Temple-but we didn't do so.

DAVEH: Thank you for that measure of respect,
Dean.
cd: That wasn't not done out
of respect. I just don't like being set up/used by Mormons.He told
us that Mormons loved the present Prophet (so-called) more then they
loved J. Smith-then gave us the picturesthen instructed us to tear
them up in front of the Temple. Sure sounded like a set up to me?
You agree DaveH? Would a Mormon High Priest do such?

I guess I will Get DavH off
you back

DAVEH: ??? Does that mean you have your finger on the EXECUTE DavH button, Judge Dean?
Has Kevin been complaining about me bothering him lately? I don't
recall saying anything to him recently that would be
disrespectful..But if he wants me gone, it is within your power to
carry out his wishes.
cd: Dave you need to learn
to separate the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore. All I
meant was that we are headed to our usual takeno prisoners debate.

Group Please keep off the Ad.
Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention

DAVEH: How considerate of you, Judge Dean! I guess I should fee
privileged that you are willing to devote all your attention to me to
the exclusion of other TTers. It does seem a bit selfish though.as
you seem to want to smoke all the Ad.
Hom. grass yourself!!! Just don't inhale though,
as you might choke on it..  =-O

cd:
Sound like you also like a good fight-You admitted to provocking me and
I am answering your caslling out andI am standing here Mormon-lets get
on with it Pagan.

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
  cd: Ouch:-) Hey I have
that picture in mutli's-The High Priest that Ruben hung out (what was
his name?)with gave us copies to tear up in from of the
Temple-but we didn't do so. Kevin I guess I will Get DavH
off you back for a while as soon as David shows of-or better yet I
might as well get stated on that:-)So I will be busy for a while-Group
Please keep off the Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some
attention.
  
  
  





-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?






That is Judge Moore to
you buddy!!

DAVEH: I have a hard time figuring out which Judge I'm dealing with,
as he seems to speak from both sides of his mouth.  :-\ 

  


DAVEH: I can understand you saying that about
Lance, Kevin.but, why did you include Judge Dean in that rant?
cd: Hey-No
fair-Where is the moderator?Ad. HOM!- Ad. Homein attack!!Someone get
the Moderator-That is Judge Moore to you buddy!!


  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn





Does this come close to a NON BLATANT AD HOM in your eyes?

DAVEH: Naw.It's just an observation, Kevin. Why do think it is an
ad-hom? Did you feel a twinge of guilt when reading it? I would be
very surprised if a SPers such as I imagine DavidM to be would fee
guilty, as I can't imagine him using simular tactics.  But if it
struck a sensitive nerve with youwell, I suppose I wouldn't be
surprised. However Kevin, I really don't know you very well. Do you
feel comfortable with SPers who do such, or use other demeaning tactics
such as waving underwear?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Sure sounded like a set up to
me? You agree DaveH?
  
  DAVEH: Hmmm again.Sounds like
something he learned from SPers.
  
  WHAT are you implying DH? Does this come close to a NON
BLATANT AD HOM in your eyes?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  That wasn't not done out of
respect. 

DAVEH: Hmm...Do you have any respect for Mormons, Dean?

Sure sounded like a
set up to me? You agree DaveH?

DAVEH: Hmmm again.Sounds like something he learned from SPers.

Would a Mormon High
Priest do such?

DAVEH: None that I know would do such. Hmmm a third
time..Perhaps he was a SPer claiming to be MHP. If he was indeed a
true Mormon, I believe his actions were inappropriate, and I will
apologize to you in his behalf.  However, I dislike drawing
conclusions without hearing the his side of the story.

Dave you need to
learn to separate the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.

DAVEH: That's a mistake I've seen other moderators use as an excuse
for improper behavior. Do you believe that separating Judge Dean from Judge More
absolves you from responsible behavior? If Judge Dean posts an ad-hom,
would not be reasonable to expect Judge More admonish
him? If not, then would Judge
More be practicing a double standard?

 Perhaps I do have trouble separating the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.when
I hear you say something to the effect..

Group Please
keep off the Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention

I pretty much hear Judge
More's voice, despite your claim that it is
Judge Dean's lips that are moving. I can't see which side of the mouth
you are speaking from, Judge Dean. I can only read your words and
interpret them a s coming from one who intends to takeno prisoners.

All
I meant was that we are headed to our usual takeno prisoners debate.

DAVEH: You are the one who called me a pagan, Judge Dean. If you
wish to refuse to apologize for making that ad-hom remark, and if Judge
Moore does not call you on the carpet for posting blatant ad-homs, then
would Judge Moore be justified in giving me the boot if I merely
referred to Judge Dean's ___(fill in the blank) practices? Your takeno
prisoners comment seems to imply TT
is not big enough for both of us, Judge Dean. Is that where you want
to go with this?


  
gave us copies to
tear up in from of the Temple-but we didn't do so.

DAVEH: Thank you for that measure of
respect, Dean.
cd: That wasn't not done
out of respect. I just don't like being set up/used by Mormons.He
told us that Mormons loved the present Prophet (so-called) more then
they loved J. Smith-then gave us the picturesthen instructed us to
tear them up in front of the Temple. Sure sounded like a set up to
me? You agree DaveH? Would a Mormon High Priest do such?

I guess I will Get DavH
off you back

DAVEH: ??? Does that mean you have your finger on the EXECUTE DavH button, Judge Dean?
Has Kevin been complaining about me bothering him lately? I don't
recall saying anything to him recently that would be
disrespectful..But if he wants me gone, it is within your power to
carry out his wishes.
cd: Dave you need to
learn to separate the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore. All
I meant was that we are headed to our usual takeno prisoners debate.

Group Please keep off the
Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some attention

DAVEH: How considerate of you, Judge Dean! I guess I should fee
privileged that you are willing to devote all your attention to me to
the exclusion of other TTers. It does seem a bit selfish though.as
you seem to want to smoke all the Ad.
Hom. grass yourself!!! Just don't inhale though,
as you might choke on it..  =-O

cd:
Sound like you also like a good fight-You admitted to provocking me and
I am answering your caslling out andI am standing here Mormon-lets get
on with it Pagan.

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
  cd: Ouch:-) Hey I
have that picture in mutli's-The High Priest that Ruben hung out (what
was his name?)with gave us copies to tear up in from of the
Temple-but we didn't do so. Kevin I gue ss I will Get DavH
off you back for a while as soon a

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn





Guilt? What would give you such thoughts?

DAVEH: Is that not one of the possibilities to consider when a person
seems seems sensitive to an issue? I can't imagine DavidM being
sensitive to what I said about SPers, yet you seemed to consider my
comment an ad-hom.why? Your name wasn't mentioned. Not even was a
specific action mentioned. Yet it appeared as though you identified
with something underlying. Makes me wonder what makes you tick,
KevinDo you really think my speculative comment constitutes an
ad-hom? If sospecifically to whom is the ad-hom against?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Guilt? What would give you such thoughts?
  
  Titus Unto the pure all things are
pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing
pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
  
Notice it is persons that are defiled not their thoughts/beliefs.
  It is people that are cast into HELL not their beliefs!
  
  Do you feel comfortable with SPers who
do such, or use other demeaning tactics such as waving underwear?
  
  Great peace have they which love thy law:
and nothing shall offend them.
  
  Jesus taught that those that are offended have no root in
themselves MT 13:21 and can not endure.
  Are you saying Mormons are ABOVE REPROACH?
  Pr 15:10 Correction
i s grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth
reproof shall die.
  2 Tim 4:2-4 Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort
with all longsuffering and doctrine.For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they
heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn
away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
  1 Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the
devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the
Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
  Pr 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret
love.
  
  We are told in the
Book of Jude to contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.
  Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except
they be agreed?
  Lu 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give
peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division
  Pr 28:4 They that forsake the law praise
the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them
  Jn 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am
come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they
which see might be made blind.
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Does
this come close to a NON BLATANT AD HOM in your eyes?

DAVEH: Naw.It's just an observation, Kevin. Why do think it is an
ad-hom? Did you feel a twinge of guilt when reading it? I would be
very surprised if a SPers such as I imagine DavidM to be would fee
guilty, as I can't imagine him using simular tactics.  But if it
struck a sensitive nerve with youwell, I suppose I wouldn't be
surprised. However Kevin, I really don't know you very well. Do you
feel comfortable with SPers who do such, or use other demeaning tactics
such as waving underwear?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Sure sounded like a set up
to me? You agree DaveH?
  
  DAVEH: Hmmm again.Sounds like
something he learned from SPers.
  
  WHAT are you implying DH? Does this come close to a NON
BLATANT AD HOM in your eyes?
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  That wasn't not done out of
respect. 

DAVEH: Hmm...Do you have any respect for Mormons, Dean?

Sure sounded
like a set up to me? You agree DaveH?

DAVEH: Hmmm again.Sounds like something he learned from SPers.

Would a Mormon
High Priest do such?

DAVEH: None that I know would do such. Hmmm a third
time..Perhaps he was a SPer claiming to be MHP. If he was indeed a
true Mormon, I believe his actions were inappropriate, and I will
apologize to you in his behalf.  However, I disl ike drawing
conclusions without hearing the his side of the story.

Dave you need
to learn to separate the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.

DAVEH: That's a mistake I've seen other moderators use as an excuse
for improper behavior. Do you believe that separating Judge Dean from Judge More
absolves you from responsible behavior? If Judge Dean posts an ad-hom,
would not be reasonable to expect Judge More admonish
him? If not, then would Judge
More be practicing a double standard?

 Perhaps I do have trouble separating the Moderator "Judge More" from Dean Moore.when
I hear you say something to the effect..

Group
Please keep off the Ad. Hom. grass so I can give the "Provoker" some
attention

I pretty much hear Judge
More's voice, despite your claim that it is
Judge Dean's lips that are moving. I can't see which side of the mouth
you are speaking from, Judge Dean. I can only read your words and
interpre

Re: [TruthTalk] Kinder Gentler God would not call names - pagan ?????





OK let me chime in I will restate it for Dean
DH's BELIEFS are Pagan!

DAVEH: OK Kevinspecifically in what way do draw that conclusion?
What is it that you think I believe that qualifies as a pagan belief?
First, you may want to define what you think pagan means so we will
have a common starting point.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  "You .. are a pagan" is not the
same as "Your beliefs are pagan" 
  
  For the sake of Lance (IYO)
  
  OK let me chime in I will restate it for Dean
  DH's BELIEFS are Pagan!
  
  So does the BIBLE practice ADHOMS?
  AND name names!
  
  Sop let me get this straight Paul should NOT have said:
  Acts 13 Elymas the sorcerer ...
  PAUL SAYS: And
said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of
the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not
cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
  
  SHOULD BE
  And said, O full of all subtilty beliefs
and all beliefs of mischief, thou child with beliefs of the
devil, thoubelieving againstall righteousness, wilt thou not
cease believing to pervert
the right ways of the Lord? (what
VERSION would this be? )
  Since Paul was FULL of the Holy Ghost (IMO VS 9)when he said
this does that mean God called Elymas A DEVIL? Is God ADHOM? Did God
call him a PERVERT?
  Just wonderin...
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

You DaveH are a Pagan.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean.
To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom

Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs
an attack on your person?
Seriously; can you expound? KD


DHcanmakethe point but let me
chime in here, as well. "You .. are a pagan" is not the same as
"Your beliefs are pagan" 

Those who haveeyes, let them see,
Lord. 
jd




--
Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  You DaveH are a Pagan.
  DAVEH: ; I respectfully disagree, Judge
Dean. To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom
  
  Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs
an attack on your person?
  Seriously; can you expound?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I
called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian
to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as
receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian)
you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian

DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?

You DaveH are a Pagan.

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.

he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ

DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?

Get over it the truth is not an Ad.
Homein attack

DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?

state a petition to impeach me

DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.

I am not Judge Dean

DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?

by your standards
isn't that Ad.
Homein attacking

DAVEH: ??? I thought we were playing the game by your standards,
Judge Dean! Hence.Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack according
to you.

I will have to go to the Moderator

DAVEH: I've not had much luck with him, but I suspect he will listen
to you.


  


Are you implyin g Dean called you
such NAMES?

DAVEH: I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin..I say/demand again "
Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your temple Pagan!!!

Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] spirit of Hinn





I can not discern Deans meaning I guess you would have to ask him.
Should I be responsible for everyone elses beliefs now?

DAVEH: You seemed to have little hesitation claiming to know what I
believe, so why you would feign not understanding Dean's meaning seems
strange, since you fellas are on the same side of the fence.

Again I have no desire to see you depart from TT.

DAVEH: Yes, you've said that beforethank you. As I remember, it
was Dean who felt that I should not be given ground here on which to
stand. In the past, he has made it clear that I should be jettisoned
from TT. I do not recall you making any such comments though.

You are always looking for "common ground" I think I can agree with
the following:

DAVEH: I find that interesting. I did not think you would see it
quite the same way as OP stated it. Hm.I learn something
every day!

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  DAVEH: Thanx Kevin. Hmmm...what
do you think Judge Dean meant by his comment.I guess I will Get DavH
off you back? His below explanation lacks
logical credibility, IMO.
  
  I don't have my crystal ball handy so I can not discern
Deans meaning I guess you would have to ask him. Should I be
responsible for everyone elses beliefs now?
  Any guess from me would be just that. Do you want me to guess, I
can do that if you want.
  
  Again I have no desire to see you depart from TT.
  Obviously I do not agree with your belief system and am vocal
about it as I should be.
  
  Someone else put it this way:
  "If I should hear a man advocate the erroneous principles he had
imbibed through education, and oppose those principles, some might
imagine that I opposed to that man, when I am opposed to every evil and
erroneous principle he advances." - Brigham Young, - Journal of
Discourses 7:191 
  
  You are always looking for "common ground" I think I can
agree with the following:
  " If we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God
that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will
sustain you in the privileges, guaranteed in the Great Charter of
American Liberty; we ask from you the generosity - protect us in the
exercises of our religious rights - convince us of our errors of
doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments. or by the
word of God, and we will ever be grateful for the information, and you
will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments
in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness
which you may see enveloping their minds." - Orson Pratt, Th e
Seer, p. 15-16 
  
  The Bible says:
  Gal
4:16 Am I therefore become
your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I
do not want you gone Dave.

DAVEH: Thanx Kevin. Hmmm...what do you think Judge Dean
meant by his comment.I guess I will Get DavH off you back?
His below explanation lacks logical credibility, IMO.

Ido not complain about you

DAVEH: From Dean's previous comment.I guess I will Get DavH off you back...
it seemed as though the Judge was implying you were bothered by my
presence on TT. If that is not the case, I appreciate the
clarification.

You have no problem with the draconian rules of your leaders?

DAVEH: Do you have any problems with the draconian rules of
the Bible, Kevin? The Lord gave the Law, and how well we keep it is
somewhat a measure of our love for him. Do you see it the same way,
Kevin?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  I do not want you gone Dave.
  Please don't misrepresent me I have never said or implied
such I am not a pope protestant or potentate!
  Banishment and worse is a Popish - Protestant distinctive!
  This is in their belief system
  I have told you before I am not of the RC nor their
offspring the protestants!
  I do not chase people down the street come over here Mormon.
Repent or else I will...
  I will preach but if you are offended plug you ears and
avert youe eyes as I have previouslt stated on this forum
  The Supreme court has said the same.
  I believe in freedom of speech AND conscience.
  I have no desire to enforce my beliefs on you.
  I have a desire as the scriptures speak, that God willgive
you aheart of flesh and eternal life.
  
  Ido not complain about you
  I hardly know you!
  Iam agains t certain beliefs, that does not mean we could
not be friends and still disagree STRONGLY. Ask myLDS friends
  
  O I left out POTENTATES such as Hinckley
  The thinking has been done according to your leaders ya know.
  You have no problem with the draconian rules of your
leaders?
  
  
  
  Dean Moo re [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  


- Original Message - 


  From:
  Dave
Hansen 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent:
3/9/2006 3:58

Re: [TruthTalk] Deeply Held Beliefs

OOPS! just noticed the SUBJECT so I reposted changed

DAVEH: I was wondering when somebody would bring that up!

Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs an
attack on your person?

DAVEH: I don't recall him attacking my beliefs. He merely judged
me a a Pagan
and then posted it as a fact, which seems to be a personal attack. It
is an inaccurate judgment, and as it was presented it represents a
false accusation..does it not meet the definition of the ad-hom
rule of TT?

Kevin Deegan wrote:
OOPS! just noticed the SUBJECT so I reposted
changed

Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You DaveH are a Pagan.
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean.
To me, your above comment is a blatant ad-hom

Why is attacking your genuinely held beliefs
an attack on your person?
Seriously; can you expound?

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian
to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as
receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian)
you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian

DAVEH: What kind of convoluted logic is that, Judge Dean??? Does any
other TTer who understands what Dean said above, agree with his
explanation?

You DaveH are a Pagan.

DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Judge Dean. To me, your above
comment is a blatant ad-hom, and I will request Judge Moore take the
appropriate action if you do not wish to apologize.

he fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus
Christ

DAVEH: Is that coming from Judge Dean, or Judge Moore?

Get over it
the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack

DAVEH: Really?!?!?!?! Did you just make a new TT rule, Judge Moore?
Or was that Judge Dean expressing his unfounded wishes?

state a petition to impeach me

DAVEH: Seems to me that you are doing a good job of it on your own.

I am not Judge Dean

DAVEH: Then am I to assume that every time you pass judgment, you are
speaking as Judge Moore?

by your standards
isn't that Ad.
Homein attacking

DAVEH: ??? I thought we were playing the game by your standards,
Judge Dean! Hence.Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack according
to you.

I will have to go to the Moderator

DAVEH: I've not had much luck with him, but I suspect he will listen
to you.

Are you implying Dean called you such
NAMES?

DAVEH: I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin...I
say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your
temple Pagan!!!

cd: Hey- that is Judge Moore to you buddy.
You are the one that put a separation between Christianity and
Mormonism-in you comment -and when I declare th at by doing so this is
Paganism you state crying .
My
Comment:
Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are
you just plain mean?
Your
reply:
So let me ask you, Dean..Is it the
Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You
called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated
the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the
second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian-To
be non-Christian is to be a Pagan. You DaveH are
a Pagan.The fact that you do not follow
the teach ing of Jesus Christ is a deeper conformation of that
point.

Get
over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack- or state a petition to impeach me.I am not Judge Dean -by your standards isn't
that Ad. Homein attacking-better stop or I will have to go to the Moderator.Hey -Judge
Moore Moderate this!

Kevin Deegan wrote:
Are you implying Dean called you such
NAMES?

D ave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dave
why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups?

DAVEH: Hwell, I hadn't thought about dissecting
you guys, but it is a tempting thought you've given me! ;-)

Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you
just plain mean?

DAVEH: LOL..Sometimes I think SPers are their own worst enemy!
You have the power to push the button that bars me from TT, Dean. If
you do such, I don't think your problems will all go with me. I've
been called a pagan here, a snake in the grass, satan's
messenger boya nd I've been falsely accused of condoning
violence against SPers. So let me ask you, Dean..Is it
the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mea n?

Dean Moore wrote:

cd:Dave why are you trying to fuel
dissection bet

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?

2006-03-08 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: I can understand you saying that about Lance, Kevin.but,
why did you include Judge Dean in that rant?

Kevin Deegan wrote:
 
  You
 Lance can attack all you want. God says and eternity will reveal
the wisdom of winning souls!
   
  
   
  Pr
11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a
tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.
   
  
   
  1 co 1:18 For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
   
  
   
  1 co 1:21 For after
that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
   
  
   
  JN 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth
wages, and gathereth fruit unto life
eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice
together.
   
  
   
  2 Co 9:6 But this I
say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which
soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
   
  
  
  Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
  


 
- Original Message - 

 
 
  From: Lance Muir 
   
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
   
  Sent: 3/8/2006 5:23:10 AM 
   
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of
truthtalk?
   
  
  
  
  DH:TT has a NEW POPE! You're
just going to have to adjust. IMO your mystification re:SP types ain't
a mystery. Preach the (their) gospel (their doctrine) by any means
whatsoever. As they see it the end justifies the means. Though you and
I are most assuredly not of one mind as to Jesus yet, we are seen as
occupying the same camp. That camp is the camp of the lost/damned/bound
for hell. I do see why they do what they do. This is the same sort of
logic employed by their commander in chief over the Middle East.
  cd: But Lance you
said that it was fair earlier to moderate using those principles-and
even earlier that that you said that you were glad I was moderator-now
only hatred exists? What happened? Pope is a little much-How about
Bishop Moderator-or better yet Moderator Bishop-nay.. still doesn't
work..O' well we can keep trying ?The lost commentsare correct
Lance-This is not meant to be mean to you but to help you
understand-One cannot refuse as much of the Bible as you do and be one
of God's-it doesn't work that way Lance-I would much rather say this
now and get you to understandthe principle behind my wordsthan to be
there when God say's "depart from me". At that timeit will then be too
late-I fear that will happen to you.
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] ***Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM*

2006-03-08 Thread Dave Hansen





O
BIG SLIPUP DAVE-You just acknowledged that Mormons are not Christians
for the first time

DAVEH: Have you been sniffing glue lately? Just how did you come to
that conclusion, Judge Dean? Despite doing unChristian things such as
making false accusations against me, I've never considered that you
weren't a Christian, Dean. Just because I acknowledge your
Christianity does not diminish mine. H..If that is the way
you think, then I can start to understand why you seem to want to deny
my Christianity. Faulty logic, IMO.

you
were lying all the other times you made the claim to be a Christian

DAVEH: Are you going to stand by that statement, Judge Dean, or are
you willing to retract it with an apology for making a false accusation?

I
say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your
temple Pagan!!!

DAVEH:  I view this as an blatant ad-hom, Judge Dean. If you want to
play loose with the TT ad-hom rule Dean, does that mean you will allow
me to say something that will make you feel uncomfortable? Orare
you going to rule TT using a double standard, Judge?

prove
to me that your were called-"A snake in the grass" and"satans
messenger boy

DAVEH: Huh?!?!?! Why should I have to prove that to you, Judge
Dean? I know what was said about me. If
you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I
don't have the time nor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to
prove your innocence then use these keywords-"snake
in the grass" and "satans messenger boy"- search a couple of years back
should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice
:-)

I suspect you may be right about the
word"Pagan"

DAVEH: O BIG SLIPUP Dean
I suspect you reaffirmed it with you below comment.I say/demand again "
Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your temple Pagan!!!

  Now, do you want to
apologize for this ad-hom before it becomes an embarrassment Dean? It
would be very easy for you to admit making this error and apologize for
it before it eats you alive, Judge. Or, do you want to risk being
viewed as a hypocritical Christian?



Dean Moore wrote:


  
Dave why are you trying to fuel
dissection between the groups?

DAVEH: Hwell, I hadn't thought about dissecting
you guys, but it is a tempting thought you've given me! ;-) 
cd: Hey, but fair Dave? You trymonitoring
150 odd posting and then spell discretion?

Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain
mean?

DAVEH: LOL..Sometimes I think SPers are their own worst enemy!
You have the power to push the button that bars me from TT, Dean. If
you do such, I don't think your problems will all go with me. I've
been called a pagan here, a snake in the grass, satan's
messenger boyand I've been falsely accused of condoning
violence against SPers. So let me ask you, Dean..Is it
the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
cd:
O BIG SLIPUP DAVE-You just acknowledged that Mormons are not
Christians for the first time-That means you were lying all the
other times you made the claim to be a Christian-So I
say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your
temple Pagan!!!" BTW prove to me that your were called-"A snake
in the grass" and"satans messenger boy-I suspect you may be
right about the word"Pagan".

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  
  cd:Dave why are you trying to fuel
dissection between the groups??Is it the Mormon in you doing
such-or are you just plain mean?.
  
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?





The truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if one can prove his point
to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion?
Why mine decision of course)

DAVEH: Did the rules change, Dean? Are the rules being modified on
the fly to suit the needs of the moderator??? As a moderator, is that
what you consider to be fair?

(maybe he found love for me after all.)

DAVEH: We all love you, Dean. I'm just not sure we all can tolerate,
let alone survive, you! (I'll copy this to John, as he may
appreciate the irony in it.)

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  Moderator: No-The truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if one
can prove his point to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion? Why
mine decision of course)-Please explanation after my coming
chastisement from David.But don't jump the gun and attack me as he
seems to be hesitating(maybe he found love for me after all.)-and
if wrong you will still be dealing with a moderator-that will not take
any crap:-)
  
  
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?


DAVEH: Dean, does this not qualify as an ad-hom?

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  cd: or lose all creditability
as Lance had done in my opinion of this matter.
  
  




-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?





DAVEH: ??? You did what likewise, Lance?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  I did likewise, Dave.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 07, 2006 10:01
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?


The truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if one can prove his
point to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion?
Why mine decision of course)

DAVEH: Did the rules change, Dean? Are the rules being modified on
the fly to suit the needs of the moderator??? As a moderator, is that
what you consider to be fair?

(maybe he found love for me after all.)

DAVEH: We all love you, Dean. I'm just not sure we all can tolerate,
let alone survive, you! (I'll copy this to John, as he may
appreciate the irony in it.)

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  Moderator: No-The truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if
one can prove his point to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion?
Why mine decision of course)-Please explanation after my coming
chastisement from David.But don't jump the gun and attack me as he
seems to be hesitating(maybe he found love for me after all.)-and
if wrong you will still be dealing with a moderator-that will not take
any crap:-)
  
  
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?


DAVEH: Dean, does this not qualify as an
ad-hom?

Dean Moore wrote:

  
   
  
  
  
  cd: or lose all
creditability as Lance had done in my opinion of this matter.
  
  



  


-- 
~~~
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.

[TruthTalk] SPer Tactics







DAVEH: Could that be because of your relatively large stature, Kevin?
Perhaps you seem more menacing to your opponents than do smaller SPers
whom you have implied were attacked by at least one Mormon, though you
suggested more than one in your use of plural form of Mormon
Thugs 

++
Only Mormon Thugs  Anarchists attack us. Nice company you
keep.
And
let me remind you Mormons always attack from the REAR and seem to have
some strange homing device that alllows them to pick out those
reallySMALL SP's that must be the most vitriolic ones.
++

..Was that smaller SP who was attacked one of your group? Do
you resent that another SPer was attacked, and you were not?

Does that mean I do/do not/can/can not have my own personal martyr
complex as you put it?

 Not at all, Kevin. I wouldn't think of denying your right to have
any head problems. I'm just wondering what you think when you do
confront your opponents on the street. Do you intentionally try to
push them to the edgeIOW, it is a part of your preaching strategy
to bring the water to a boil? And, have you ever been attacked by
anybody to whom you were preaching?



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  DH I have never been attacked by a Mormon! GO FIGURE
  Does that mean I do/do not/can/can not have my own personal
martyr complex as you put it?
  
  If you want to postulate further on your false assumptions have
at it
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH:
OK Dean, I understand your sensitivity to such and will respond without
using the words you find objectionable.  I would like to continue to
discuss this, as I find it interesting to see how SPers think.

 I am curious as to why one would still show up on somebody's
doorstep when an objectionable topic is mentioned rather than discuss
it with them via the phone or email? What is to be accomplished by a
personal visit? Most folks would understand such a visit to be a
physical threat, even though it could be claimed that the offended has
a constitutional right to confront the offender.

 The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that many SPers
seemed surprised that they are physically attacked when confronting
sinners on the streets. Yet they feel compelled to stare the jaws of
death (so to speak) in the mouth. Is this a martyr complex of sorts?
Does it give SPers confidence if they are persecuted for the Lord's
sake? I suppose an argument can be made that if one dies while in the
service of the Lord, it would be a feather in the cap of the persecuted
while at the same time driving the persecutor even deeper into hell.
To me that seems like rather odd logic, considering that the SPer (or
guy showing up on the doorstep) is somewhat a catalyst in this
scenario. IOWIs a SPer guilty of promoting a problem when he uses
his constitutionally guaranteed free speech to aggravate a situation
tha t can and will likely turn to violence?


  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?





DAVEH: You've lost me on that, Izzy. Care to elaborate?

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  DaveH, I
cant help but notice the
change in you of late. It hasnt been good. Think about
it. iz
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
  Sent: Tuesday, March
07, 2006 9:02
AM
  To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] The
'spirit' of truthtalk?
  
  
  The
truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if one can prove his
point to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion? Why mine decision of
course)
  
DAVEH: Did the rules change, Dean? Are the rules being
modified on the fly to suit the needs of the moderator??? As a
moderator, is that what you consider to be fair?
  
  (maybe he found love for
me after
all.)
  
DAVEH: We all love you, Dean. I'm just not sure we all can
tolerate, let alone survive, you! (I'll copy this to John, as
he may appreciate the irony in it.)
  
Dean Moore wrote: 
  
  
  Moderator:
No-The truth is not Ad. Hom attacks if
one can prove his point to a reasonable conclusion(whose conclusion?
Why mine
decision of course)-Please explanation after my coming chastisement
from
David.But don't jump the gun and attack me as he seems to be hesitating(maybe
he found love for me after all.)-and if wrong you will still be
dealing
with a moderator-that will not take any crap:-)
  
  
  
  
  
  
Subject:
Re:
[TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk? 



DAVEH: Dean, does this not
qualify as an
ad-hom?

Dean Moore wrote: 


cd:
or lose all creditability as Lance had done in my opinion of this
matter.

Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?