Re: [TruthTalk] TT w/o a moderator
DAVEH: Yikes.can I really be in agreement with Kevin??? If you decide to go that route for awhile, DavidMwhy not deep 6 the ad-hom rule. Who knowsmaybe TT can rise from the ashes like a phoenix!!! Kevin Deegan wrote: David, Since TT has been w/o a Moderator, it seems to have done just fine. Why not just keep the list up w/o one? Breaking up is just so hard to do. -- ~~~ 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] Carl Baugh
DAVEH: Ahhthat's interesting. I noticed his many detractors when googling his name. You are right.sometimes biases get in the way of truth. I'm sure there are a few TTers who would view me in that light! Tonights show is CREATION AND TIME. It seems to be a replay of last week's episode, which discusses evolution and the age of the universe. Quite fascinating, since he offers some compelling arguments in defiance of traditional science! His claim is that the earth's magnetic field would have been too strong 15 to 20k years ago to have allowed cellular life. He bases that on the magnetic field strength can be calculated by its current decay rate with a half life of 1,400 years. So, he concludes that life as we know it could not have existed more than 10k years ago. He then went on to suggest that the universe was created less than 10k years ago, and via Einsteinian physics, some of the stars ended up billions of light years away when the fabric of time and space were stretched. Sounded kinda wacky to me, and he didn't spend hardly any time meaningfully explaining that part of his theory. He just tossed it out briefly, expecting the viewers to buy into it because it was based on Einsteinian theory. I'll be curious to watch a few more episodes before I can give any credence to his perspective. Howeverhe certainly does have some interesting ideas. The guy who turned me on to him is a 7DA, and says that CB claims that the water of Noah's Flood time was mostly suspended in the sky by a metallic barrier. Sounds like he has some way out theories that will be fun to listen to! David Miller wrote: I talked to Carl once on the telephone. He was kind enough to return my phone call. The problem is that he made some huge mistakes in regards to the Paluxy River beds and it greatly hurt the evidence that might actually be there for a recent creation. The evolutionists were all over his mistake and have discounted his entire work because of it. The jury is still open for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias of scientists first hand. David Miller 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: Ayou are beginning to realize my point, Izzy. Likewise, if the torment of hell is not a literal burning lake of brimstone, then perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart. ShieldsFamily wrote: It has not been quenched. It is alive today in my heart. izzy 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] Hell BoM
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] 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] 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
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
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
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.
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?
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*************
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?
to clear the confusion one should be able to prove their charge they make against others. DAVEH: That's what I asked you to do when you made a false accusation about me (condoning violence) a few months back. Your response was that you didn't know how to use the archives, and that is was my responsibility to prove that I didn't say something that I didn't say. Which is logically illogical. So what is you better idea? DAVEH: Practice what you preach. By the way I can change the rules if there is good reason to do so-but you cannot. DAVEH: Ahhh..May I assume this is your perception of fairness?!?!?! When I joined TT, it was proudly proclaimed there was only one rule in TT. It seems several moderators have put that fallacy to rest. you show no hesitation provoking me-Why is that? DAVEH: I'm not sure, Dean. I find SPers to be cut from a different bolt of cloth. It seems like some SPers live in a different world, where they are in constant battle with everybody, including some that at first appear to be on their side of the fence. Other than the few Spers I've found on TT, I really don't have much experience with them, so I find how they think and operate to be rather interesting. (e.g., Waving underwear in the faces of those they want to convert.) To me it seems such a strange way to sell a product, so to speak. Yet some SPers seem (from my perspective) to lack a measure of ___(I'll leave it for the reader to fill in the word), which to me seems at odds with their mission statement. So I've got to wonder what makes them tickjust what is it that makes SPers the way they are. I don't know if that makes much sense, Dean. It's late and I suppose I'm just rambling on with the way things are going He should be able to read it here in a short amount of time. DAVEH: ??? What's that mean, Dean? Are you going to invite the Bishop of TT to return? 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? Moderator: No, DaveH but there are many levels of Ad. Hom attacking going on here so to clear the confusion one should be able to prove their charge they make against others. One should not knock an idea unless one can offer a better one or lose credibility-So what is you better idea?I am all ears. By the way I can change the rules if there is good reason to do so-but you cannot. (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! Moderator: For someone who expresses concerns about surviving me-you show no hesitation provoking me-Why is that?Also love a little harder as it isn't quite coming through my computer Dave. (I'll copy this to John, as he may appreciate the irony in it.) Moderator : Just save it-with the way things are going He should be able to read it here in a short amount of time. 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. -- ~~~ 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: 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 that can and will likely turn to violence? Dean Moore wrote: Moderator:Wouldn't have to show up in Portland DaveH-all I would have to do is click a button and my problem is solved and that is exactly what I going to do the next time you use the words-** in the combination that you used them below. Discussion over-warning given! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 3/5/2006 12:52:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk? DAVEH: Dean, from what you said previously about the oneness of husband and wife, if I were to ask you about ,, you would take that as a personal attack on ** and would then presume it to be a personal attack on you as well, and then proceed to come to Portland and show up on my doorstep.is that correct? Wouldn't it be smarter just to say the same thing to me via email or a phone call, rather than show up on my doorstep? What would be accomplished by coming to Portland? If I were then to assume you are on my doorstep for a reason other than an amicable discussion, and felt my life was being threatened by your presence on my doorstep, I would probably not answer the door. Wouldn't that just frustrate your reason for going to all that effort, cost, time and travel in an effort to come to my doorstep? Would you proceed to pound on my doo r expecting me to open it? If I did not respond to your pounding, then what would you do? And if you continued to pound on my door, what would you do if I opened it with a gun in my hand, as I might do if I perceived you as being a threat to me in my home? At that point, if you turned and left, nothing else would happen and you would have spent a lot of effort for little reason other than to satisfy your pride. If on the other hand you were to raise the level of confrontation by arguing, and if I misunderstood the reasons you were on my doorstep confronting me and refusing to leave, would you be surprised if it led to a lethal action on my part? IF that above scenario were to occur, how do you think the law would view this matter? Would I be found guilty of manslaughter, or would you be guilty of threatening my life to the point of my using justifiable lethal means in self-defense? In my defense, I'm sure my lawyer would quote your comment. ... -- ~~~ 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] WOOHOO Lance - Here is someone saying the same thing as me..!!
It was the printing press. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree. The most important invention in the history of the world is.the erasure! Judy, Do you know what the most important invention in the history of the world was? It wasn't the computer. And it sure wasn't the light bulb or the telephone. (Or even the electronic voting machine.) It was the printing press. -- ~~~ 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] Courtesy of A.Word.A.Day
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -Anne Lamott, writer (1954- ) -- ~~~ 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 'spirit' of truthtalk?
DAVEH: Dean, from what you said previously about the oneness of husband and wife, if I were to ask you about your wife's sexual history, you would take that as a personal attack on your wife and would then presume it to be a personal attack on you as well, and then proceed to come to Portland and show up on my doorstep.is that correct? Wouldn't it be smarter just to say the same thing to me via email or a phone call, rather than show up on my doorstep? What would be accomplished by coming to Portland? If I were then to assume you are on my doorstep for a reason other than an amicable discussion, and felt my life was being threatened by your presence on my doorstep, I would probably not answer the door. Wouldn't that just frustrate your reason for going to all that effort, cost, time and travel in an effort to come to my doorstep? Would you proceed to pound on my door expecting me to open it? If I did not respond to your pounding, then what would you do? And if you continued to pound on my door, what would you do if I opened it with a gun in my hand, as I might do if I perceived you as being a threat to me in my home? At that point, if you turned and left, nothing else would happen and you would have spent a lot of effort for little reason other than to satisfy your pride. If on the other hand you were to raise the level of confrontation by arguing, and if I misunderstood the reasons you were on my doorstep confronting me and refusing to leave, would you be surprised if it led to a lethal action on my part? IF that above scenario were to occur, how do you think the law would view this matter? Would I be found guilty of manslaughter, or would you be guilty of threatening my life to the point of my using justifiable lethal means in self-defense? In my defense, I'm sure my lawyer would quote your comment one should not connect two thoughts together that one does not intent to belong together-it will most certainly led others to mistake your meaning. ..as evidence to show that you are quite aware that you know that showing up on my doorstep could be mistakenly understood as an act of aggression. So Dean, knowing this, why would you continue to say... I will show up at their door and they can explain their remarks to me ...when you know it is likely your reason for showing up will most certainly led others to mistake your meaning? Wouldn't it be much smarter to instead discuss such matters at a non-threatening distanceIOW, why can't those remarks be discussed over the phone or via email? In a subsequent post, with regard to using a weapon.. I would use one to protect my family. ...it might be construed that hearing the discussion of sexual matters regarding your wife would make you think it is justifiable to use violent means when going to the offenders doorstep. Even other TTers have implied that your threats could be considered to be serious cd's gonna have tosend hera sawed offKalishnikov just to protect herselffrom you, Bro and.. he thinks that semi-auto sawed off self-defense ispretty good (for protectin' his her)religion, Bro, and he's the moderator not to mention the comments of one excommunicated TTer who was willing to take you to the mat. So Dean, I will repeat me above questionwould it not be wiser to simply discuss such matters from a distance, rather than provoke a situation that might rage out of control? Why would you feel compelled to physically confront the one with whom you disagree? Dean Moore wrote Dean:It was verbally explicit. I believed you! Were you not telling the truth? cd: Meant every word of it Lance-If someone asks my wife such question I will show up at their door and they can explain their remarks to me.What you choose to take as a violence act if up to your imagine-for most people see what they want to see. -- ~~~ 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: 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] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library
A myth is a story that is true until you insist that it be factual and then it is a lie -- ~~~ 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] Courtesy of Mel of Mormon-Library
DAVEH: Hmm.You failed to include TruthTalk in that comment, G. (I do recall you judging some TT posts as mythical on occasion.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, pls tell Mel thatmyth is as much the Achilles heel of the Morman Library as it is the Library of Congress On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:41:16 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A myth is a story that is true until you insist that it be factual and then it is a lie. || -- ~~~ 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] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit.
DAVEH: Nice to see your sense of humor has not escaped you, Dean! :-D Dean Moore wrote: cd: Don't be one of those people who would argue with a stop sign John. -- ~~~ 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] God female?
now 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] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
DAVEH: DeanThanx for using a blue highlight in your reply. It makes you much more readable and discernible than before, when your replies would tend to blend in to the points to which you were responding. Dean Moore wrote: Dean insists To have a masculine quality is to be a male. Dean, are you willing to put your proposition to the test? cd: That is the very reason I am here Bill-if my propositions fall then they are not of God andI learn. -- ~~~ 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] God female?
I happen to believe that God's call was to all ppl in all generations. DAVEH: The examples you mentioned below were obviously to people to whom the Lord sent messengers to preach. I find it a bit hard to think the Chinese were afforded the same opportunity. Do you believe that God sent prophets to preach the gospel to the Chinese a thousand years ago, Judy? Do you really believe that all people born in the world in times past were aware of Jesus, and had the opportunity to believe in him, and have faith in himand to hear the gospel message? Judith H Taylor wrote: Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldees which was every bit as pagan as China, they worshipped the moon goddess Nana there God's Word tells us that we can know by the "creation" around us that there is a God. The decision to seek and/or trust rests with us. I happen to believe that God's call was to all ppl in all generations. Abraham responded. I expect to hear some balking from the Calvinists but this is the understanding given to me judyt On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:54:33 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone is born into this world withan equal opportunity to choose who they will serve DAVEH: I hope you don't mind me jumping into your exchange with JD, Judy. Do you have any Biblical evidence to support your above theory? If not, then can you explain how. 1) A Chinese person born 2,000 years ago would have had the same equal opportunity to choose as did somebody born in Jerusalem at the same time? 2) Or, a Chinese person born 100 years ago would have had the same equal opportunity to choose as somebody born in the Bible Belt? 3) Or a person born in China who was born 100 years before Jesus had the same equal opportunity to choose as one who lived in Jerusalem at the time of Christ? IOW.How as a Christian well rooted and having the knowledge of Christ readily available from the time you were born, and perhaps relatives to guide your in your walk in his footsteps, do you think the above mentioned examples of the Chinese guy born in a non-Christian society really do have equal opportunity to choose who they will serve? To me it seems there is a definite inequality in the circumstances in which people are born, and in having an equal opportunity to choose who they will serve to even hear Jesus' name, let alone accept him as their Savior, or choose to follow and serve him when they do not have the opportunity to hear the gospel. I can see where you might think Jesus would accept all men equally, but to say that all men are born into the world with equal opportunity seems a bit of a stretch. Is it theory, or is it Biblical doctrine? Judith H Taylor wrote: Everyone is born into this world withan equal opportunity to choose who they will serve. along with the opportunity to grow in wisdom and grace - or in deceit and darkness... judyt What do you believe separates ppl at birth JD? judyt On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:01:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought Dean was saying that all men are born equal. That, of course, is not true. Some are way more stupid than others, growing up without understanding nor the ability to comprehend the deeper things of life. God loves them all, of course, but that does not make then "equal." 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] God female?
and evil-rightor wrong. It is not the knowing of Christ that condemns one.Itis sin that brought corruption and condemned us already John 3:18. Receiving Christ removed the condemnation that sin placed there.All men have the equalopportunity to not sin.or to sin. Hence all men are equal.The passage of"choose you this say whom you will serve" is saying: Will you be good this day and serve God or will you do evil (sin) this day and serve Satan. Regardless what the dancing Calvinist say one cannot do both and live. (2) All man are not equal in that God decides whom to call (invite)to salvation.Menhave removed themselves so far from God as they can not find their way back to Him on their own.This is called total depravity. The wall of sin is too great for us to breach alone. Is this fair of God to call some and allow others to go onward into hell? Yes as God will give mercy to whom He will. Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. May advice is not to boast by saying I already have a paid ticket to heaven-so if I sin I have nothing to fear-because God had mercy on our poor ,miserable souls and He could leave us as He did the other children whom thought they also had it made because they were son's of Abraham and believed that God owed then something too. Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Hope this answer you question DavH. As this is my belief. -- Judith H Taylor wrote: Everyone is born into this world withan equal opportunity to choose who they will serve. along with the opportunity to grow in wisdom and grace - or in deceit and darkness... judyt What do you believe separates ppl at birth JD? judyt -- ~~~ 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: Interesting observation
Here is a clearer verse DavH: 1Pe 1:17 DAVEH: If that's your best Biblical answer to my question Dean, I suspect you did not understand the question.or, perhaps the Bible does not have a pertinent passage that supports your theory. Dean Moore wrote: all men are born equal. DAVEH: Is that just your personal theory, Deanor do you have scriptural evidence to support your belief? cd:Here is a clearer verse DavH: 1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Dean Moore wrote: cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir. -- ~~~ 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: Interesting observation
Yes Christ makes them that way DAVEH: Makes them that way at birth? It seems to me that vs 16 is not referring to a newborn child, as they seem not to have the cognizance to believe. Dean Moore wrote: all men are born equal. DAVEH: Is that just your personal theory, Deanor do you have scriptural evidence to support your belief? --- Cd: Yes Christ makes them that way,Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Dean Moore wrote: cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir. -- ~~~ 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] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
in his image DAVEH: Do any of the translations use that phrase, Bill? Here's something to consider. The KJV phrase is... in our image ...which is plural. I realize you inferred the Triune nature of the Godhead the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father, in and through the Holy Spirit, when defining God in your below comments. However, IF deity does indeed exhibit gender, is it not possible the our refers to one of the creators who might be of the feminine gender? Taylor wrote: Dean insists To have a masculine quality is to be a male. When we read that God created humans both male and female in his image, this is not a reference to God's gender; it speaks instead to his nature as a relational being, a being-in-communion: the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father, in and through the Holy Spirit. That being so, there is no "image of God" in humanity apart from relationship: the image of God is persons in relationship with others persons and God himself. It is that which reflects his glory. Bill -- ~~~ 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: Interesting observation
DAVEH: Thank you for interjecting that, John. I agree with your understanding of vs 17. I'm not trying to battle Dean over this, but rather am interested in why he believes such. I've heard the born equal theory all my life, and can't quite figure out why people attribute it to God. I was hoping Dean (or you or any other TTers) could give me some evidence from the Bible that implies such. So far, I haven't seen it. Do you know of any, or are some folks just confusing the Constitution with the Bible? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that DH can more than hold his own with Dean, but allow me. I Pet 1:17 addresses the impartiality of God, not the equality of man. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is a clearer verse DavH: 1Pe 1:17 DAVEH: If that's your best Biblical answer to my question Dean, I suspect you did not understand the question.or, perhaps the Bible does not have a pertinent passage that supports your theory. Dean Moore wrote: all men are born equal. DAVEH: Is that just your personal theory, Deanor do you have scriptural evidence to support your belief? cd:Here is a clearer verse DavH: 1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Dean Moore wrote: cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir. -- ~~~ 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] Rightousness (jd 2 cd)
DAVEH: Since I posted that, I rather regret my haste in doing so. Since then, I've been browsing a bit and should have noticed the next verse... [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ...the own is italicized, indicating it has been added for clarification. Therefore your original quote...in his image...may accurately reflect the message. I understand your beliefs regarding the absence of a female creator. From my LDS perspective though, it is not a possibility most LDS folks would deny. Taylor wrote: Do any of the translations use that phrase, Bill? As to your question, DaveH, good point:not that I know of. As for the rest of your post, I do not believe in any female God(desse)s, creators or not. I do believe, however, that the plural"our" can only strengthen my case. God's blessings to ya, dude. Bill in his image DAVEH: Do any of the translations use that phrase, Bill? Here's something to consider. The KJV phrase is... in our image ...which is plural. I realize you inferred the Triune nature of the Godhead the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father, in and through the Holy Spirit, when defining God in your below comments. However, IF deity does indeed exhibit gender, is it not possible the our refers to one of the creators who might be of the feminine gender? Taylor wrote: Dean insists To have a masculine quality is to be a male. When we read that God created humans both male and female in his image, this is not a reference to God's gender; it speaks instead to his nature as a relational being, a being-in-communion: the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father, in and through the Holy Spirit. That being so, there is no "image of God" in humanity apart from relationship: the image of God is persons in relationship with others persons and God himself. It is that which reflects his glory. Bill -- ~~~ 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] Please remove
I'm receiving an abusive number of emails from you all! Please stop!! DAVEH: FWIW..I've thought the same at times too, Stephanie. But, don't despairsimply try unsubscribing yourself by this approved method.. If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. I'm sorry you did not enjoy your TT experience, but I assure you that you are not the only one who has felt this way! :-( -- ~~~ 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 FWs about free speech thingy
You constantanger has brought us to this are DAVEH: FWIW..I don't know why you (or any other TTers who may think similar) think I am angry. FTR..I am NOT angry. Nor do I rise to anger easily. I just don't quite understand why some TTers are so quick to ascribe certain things to me, and then fail to prove their case or apologize when asked to do so. I try NOT TO SHOUT IN MY REPLIES. So, what is it that makes you or anybody else think I'm angry, Dean? You are asking me to do the impossible. DAVEH: Not at all, Dean. I'm just asking in the spirit of fairness that IF you can't prove you case, then either be careful of what you say about someone or apologize if you do say something the other person claims is in error. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing.If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so DAVEH: I share your frustration with that, Dean. I tried to do likewise, and couldn't even figure out how to access them at all. I thought there would be a link at INNGLORY, but could not find it. I suspect I can figure it out with a little time, but was too tired and went to bed instead. It would be nice if some of the more astute TTers who know how to access the archives would give us a brief lesson, or perhaps point us in the direction of a tutorial. see it I am wrong. DAVEH: I could make a joke about this, Deanbut I won't. I'm sure a lot of TTers think I'm wrong about many of the things I post. And, perhaps I am in error at times. I'm certainly no genius, and with my weak memory, I sometimes forget what was said previously. In reality, few TTers ever seem (I knowthat's a stretch) to ever come to change their minds and adopt the other poster's viewpoint. That often means that one of the two is either wrong in their closely held beliefs, or there is a massive misunderstanding between the two. Andmaybe a little pride sometimes gets in the way of good communication here. BTW.I also want to commend you for the obvious change of demeanor you've exhibited lately. It has been very noticeable, and it is appreciated by all. Let me also thank you for taking on the thankless job of moderator. Though we may disagree on many things, your willingness to moderate TT is appreciated. Dean Moore wrote: cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement. DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaningless If you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience,butI will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above. .. ...and hollow. It seems to me that one who fa lsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? cd: Was it fair to ask for proof every time Kevin made a statement? Know this DavH-in my short time on TT I have found that if one reacts with hardness/anger then this cause others to reacts the same way-then we fight and knowledge is lost.You constantanger has brought us to this area andyou- nor you church- is looking very good.You are asking me to do the impossible. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing-my computer will not even allow me to join this list or the preaching list and I have to contact David to sign me up on TT. If you think someone is being unfair because they cannot do the impossible then you a wrong. If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so-and see it I am wrong. -- ~~~ 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 FWs about free speech thingy
I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so. DAVEH: While my memory may be weak, I pretty much know what I believe. I don't support somebody becoming violent over words. What I might have said, and which you may have misunderstood is that I can understand why someone my be pushed over the edge into violence by another's words. Dean, there is a huge difference between understanding such, and supporting such. For you to insist I supported such is simply a lie. I've told you before that I have not supported this right to harm others, and I'm telling you now that I don't support violence over words. I can state such because it simply is not a position I've ever believed in taking. There is no way I can prove it to you (when I've never said it), but I've certainly explained my believe about such now. For you to insist that I do support violence over words is an outright lie, and is easy for you to prove if I said such. It is impossible to prove otherwise if I didn't say such. Dean, you have the easy out on thisknowing what I believe (from my above comments), just say that you must have misunderstood what you previously read and that you now apologize for making an erroneous statement that mischaracterizes what I've said in the past and what I believe about this matter. Failure to either present the proof or apologize for lying about what I said constitutes a sin, does it not Dean? Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others. I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is me rely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. cd: I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so.Some time prior to Ivan- around 17 mths ago should do-now excuse my granddaughter is crying. If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken. ..implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof... if you want to prove your innocence ...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean?? ? Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement. DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaningless If you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience,butI will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above. .and hollow. It seems to me that one who falsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/5/2006 1:22:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so. DAVEH: While my memory may be weak, I pretty much know what I believe. I don't support somebody becoming violent over words. What I might have said, and which you may have misunderstood is that I can understand why someone my be pushed over the edge into violence by another's words. Dean, there is a huge difference between understanding such, and supporting such. For you to insist I supported such is simply a lie. I've told you before that I have not suppo rted this right to harm others , and I'm telling you now that I don't support violence over words. I can state such because it simply is not a position I've ever believed in taking. There is no way I can prove it to you (when I've never said it), but I've certainly explained my believe about such now. For you to insist that I do support violence over words is an outright lie, and is easy for you to prove if I said such. It is impossible to prove otherwise if I didn't say such. Dean, you have the easy out on thisknowing what I believe (from my above comments), just say that you must have misunderstood what you previously read and that you now apologize for making an erroneous statement that mischaracterizes what I've said in the past and what I believe about this matter. Failure to either present the proof or apologize for lying about what I said constitutes a sin, does it not Dean? cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement. Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others. I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is me rely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. DAVEH: Yes indeed.Paul knew that something was extremely wrong. Had they been baptized by John, they would have known about the HG.. [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. .so it seems apparent that John's baptism had nothing to do with their baptism, otherwise they would have known about him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. IOWThey weren't properly baptized. Unlike Jesus, these guys had been baptized by a counterfeit John. Hence the need for Paul to baptize them again. DaveH wrote: FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? DAVEH: I believe John had the proper authority to baptize (witness Jesus' baptism), yet those who Paul baptized thought they had been baptized unto John's baptism, but the fact that they had really NOT been baptized unto John's baptism meant that their first baptism was ineffectiveunlike Jesus' baptism which was proper and effective. Does that make sense? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about Jesus Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now faith could operate. Before, faith could not operate because they had never heard of Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Notice that nowhere in the passage does Paul say, "who baptized you." The question was, "have you received the Holy Ghost." The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, because they had never received that kind of baptism. Their faith previously was in what John preached. Now their faith was in the person of Jesus Christ. DaveH wrote: These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. They did not have faith in Jesus Christ. They had faith that God was bringing the kingdom of God to them and so they were baptized unto repentance. DaveH wrote: After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
it does illustrate how God might accept a person even if the signature did not get down on paper (they were never baptized). DAVEH: As you know, it is my opinion that baptism is necessary for salvation, as evidenced by Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5. I believe God may not accept a person (they were never baptized), as may be evidenced by Mt 7:21...which suggests God may not be as accepting as some Christians think. But we've covered that ground beforeso, no need to continue this thread further. Thanx for your comments to this point, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The problem with oral contracts is proving them. A will in particular is difficult because the person is dead. If an oral contract can be established, it is considered binding. With God, both parties know their agreement. This does not mean that nobody needs to sign the contract so-to-speak (be baptized), but it does illustrate how God might accept a person even if the signature did not get down on paper (they were never baptized). David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. DAVEH: That is not necessarily true, DavidM. Real estate contracts are a real world exception. And I suspect that wills are probated without contradicting the recorded documents, despite any subsequent verbal changes that are claimed. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) 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] the FWs about free speech thingy
If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others. I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is merely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken. ..implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof... if you want to prove your innocence ...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean??? Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said. DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the timenor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) -- ~~~ 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: Interesting observation
all men are born equal. DAVEH: Is that just your personal theory, Deanor do you have scriptural evidence to support your belief? Dean Moore wrote: cd; To stay in perversion John will change the chemistry of the body in time but all men are born equal.Naive? I wish I had remained so on some things sir. -- ~~~ 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] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
the kind of evangelism that John approves of DAVEH: Is that a typo? Did you instead mean to say.disapproves? David Miller wrote: JD wrote: I do not believe in child evangelism. CD wrote: This makes me sad John. What makes this even more sad is the fact that children are the ones who benefit the most by the kind of evangelism that John approves of. 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] the FWs about free speech thingy
What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ? DAVEH: I really don't know anything about him. Wish I could have heard his comments in real time to get the context and mood of what he said. I suspect he did show some respect though. Had he not, there is no way he would have been given the pulpit. I'll have to do some web browsing to see if he has a web site. Right nowI'm too tired and going to hit the pillow. Catch you tomorrow. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You make some good points, DH. What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ? He is one busy hombre, that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] free speech has limitations. We recognize that. DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when th e shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear. For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise. However, when one respects the rights of oth ers to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM! buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say? DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT? The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue DAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory? I understand you guys i nvited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to him. My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by waving underwear on the sidewalk. David Miller wrote: Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech. The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) DAVEH: Perhaps they (the debaters ) wanted to go inside to listen to what James White had to say. :-) Dean Moore wrote: If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. --- cd; Good post David-they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) Lonnie,Kevin,Ruben,and Larry Craft had a good time with their best. Larry C. also had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) -- ~~~ 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] Courtesy of Dee of Utah
DAVEH: Hey DavidM.what's this all about??? I've not heard of it before. Is this for real, and if sodo you think it is worth visiting? Have you any personal experiences with it? http://www.theholylandexperience.com/home.html -- ~~~ 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 FWs about free speech thingy
er between them and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. ..yet are so opposed to it... please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David Miller I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. 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: Fw: [TruthTalk] Christ, the Root and the Offspring of David
DAVEH: H.I wonder if there are any new TT subscribers today? And if so, I wonder what they might be thinking after reading some of our posts! :-[ Judy Taylor wrote: I don't think Dean is as hung up on David's genitals as you are Bill. -- ~~~ 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
With the Father in heaven. DAVEH: Hmm...I did not expect that to be your answer. it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. DAVEH: Yes. From our previous discussions, you may remember that I view the rebaptism by Paul... Acts.19 [1] And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. [7] And all the men were about twelve. as evidence that a proper baptism is essential. It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? With the Father in heaven. John the Baptist was a forerunner of the new convenant that would come through Jesus. His baptism prepared the way by helping people understand the elements of entering into this new covenant. Therefore, his stewardship had an authority which the Father expected all men to parake of. Jesus, as a man, partook of it also, that he might fulfill all righteousness. He aligned himself with the testimony and ministry of John that came from the Father above, and that is a covenant. DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? Yes, and I view my comments as details concerning that phrase, "to fulfill all righteousness." It created a public testimony of alignment and participation of the covenant that comes through John for all who would heed the preaching of the gospel to repent, because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Of course, the covenant of Christ far superseded John's covenant, coming with it the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. John's covenant was temporary, making way for a more perfect one through Jesus Christ. In regards to baptism, it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. I see it to be more important that the one being baptized has faith. One who has faith in baptism causes the miracle of the new birth as a result of faith being applied. However, if one is baptized and does not really have faith, but only mental assent, then he does not experience the new birth, even if the authority of the one baptizing him was from God. Does this properly characterize our differences about baptism from your perspective? 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. DAVEH: That is not necessarily true, DavidM. Real estate contracts are a real world exception. And I suspect that wills are probated without contradicting the recorded documents, despite any subsequent verbal changes that are claimed. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Again, thanx for the explanation. Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? baptism has other purposes as well, DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. 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] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Thanx for explaining this, DavidM. It does bring up another question though. What other (other than baptism) ways do you see as ratifying the covenant? David Miller wrote: DAVEH: As you probably know, I associate baptism with such a covenant. How do you perceive it? Yes, I view it the same way. However, I view baptism as the standard _expression_ of faith for ratifying the covenant, not as the only way of ratifying the covenant. In fact, baptism without faith, in my opinion, does not ratify the person's covenant with God at all. They are just taking a bath in such a case. DaveH wrote: ... do you know if many Protestants believe in personal covenants relating to salvation as well? Yes, many do understand covenants and their personal covenant with Christ. Even those who do not use the word covenant are basically talking about the same thing when they talk about the need for a person to have "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Once again, I thank you for your thoughtful answer, DavidM. Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? (A short answer is acceptableno need to elaborate.) David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: What other (other than baptism) ways do you see as ratifying the covenant? Well, in the case of Abraham, there was a blood covenant. So that would be one other way there. With Jacob, there was wrestling with God. In terms of coming into a relationship with Jesus, the waters of baptism are what I lead a person to in order to establish their covenant with Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, if a person were for some reason kept from that, there are other things that can be done to help that person apply faith in Jesus Christ. There was a man in a nursing home that I shared Christ with, and he came to a point where he wanted to be baptized. There were logistic problems with the nursing home and family member concerns because he was nearing death. Before we could make it happen, he passed away. At that time, we had only prayed with him and helped him to commit to giving his heart to Christ through prayer. I believe and understand that God honors that profession of faith. In my own life, my parents did not consider me old enough at 5 years old to be baptized and understand what I was doing. So although I desired to be baptized and asked to be baptized, I was denied. This did not hinder the work of God in my life, when at the age of 8 Jesus baptized me with the Holy Spirit. When my parents saw that happen, they realized that I was indeed old enough to be baptized in water, and so I was at age 9. The household of Cornelius seemed to have a similar experience, entering into a covenant with God and receiving the Holy Spirit by faith, even before they had been baptized in water. 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.
