Terry,
I’d rather be around someone who is bluntly honest
than around a “sensitive” liar any day. This always gets me into
trouble. J
Izzy
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:36
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Animal
souls?
God does not have a favorite color, so the slaves were
as eligible for entrance as anyone else, but as darling as the little porker
was, I don't think Abraham or Jacob or David would want him rooting around
their mansion.(Even if he is far, far more sensitive than me).
I have this big problem. I think the truth is
more important than diplomacy or sensitivity, so I just blurt it out and take
my lumps. I really should pay more attention to preachers when they do a
funeral. They can take the sorriest son of a gun that ever walked this
green earth, and make him sound like a shoo in for Heaven before they are done
with the service, and never get caught lyin'. Some of us got it and some
don't. I am in the latter category.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday,
March 04, 2003 4:15 PM
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Animal souls?
Terry,
FYI, I think pigs have souls,
too. My Aunt Jo had rescued a little runt from being killed when she
lived on a farm many years ago. It made a darling pet. The only
problem was that it got too big to lie on her lap, and when she put it outside
it kept rooting through the screen door. It sure was affectionate.
If you recall, there was a time when
Negroes were considered as low as dirt by some folks—which obviously
didn’t make it so!
Come to think of it, I think that
pig was more sensitive than you
are. J
Izzy
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 12:35
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Animal
souls?
The comment in revelation was about people who have no
more
morals than dogs. They will not be in Heaven, and so
obviously, the dogs that they are compared to will also
not be there.
Dogs were ranked along with swine by the Jews, and
that is about
as low as it gets .(See Matthew, "Do not give
that which is Holy
to dogs, do not cast pearls to swine.)
As to my sensitivity; it has been suggested that it could
be improved.
I suspect that this is so.
-------Original Message-------
Date: Tuesday,
March 04, 2003 11:07:55
Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Animal souls?
>From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>By the way, it says in Revelation, chapter 22, that they [dogs] won't be
>[in heaven]. [I added the comments in brackets - cpl]
You aren't serious here are you? Surely you are pulling TT's collective leg
by suggesting that the use of "dogs" in Rev 22:15 refers to actual
canines.
Could "dogs" in this context be some figurative, idiomatic, or
pejorative
use of the word that was common in the period in which the revelation was
written to refer to some group or class of people?
>He is taking the old dirt nap, and that is as far as he is goin'.
Really, Terry. "Dirt nap"? Shouldn't you be a little more
sensitive?
Perry
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
----------
"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.
.
|
____________________________________________________
![]() IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
|
