Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

[Lance Muir]

Amen & Amen, Judy!! Please consider yourself 'warned'(not yet reprimanded) Mr. Moderator (David). One wonders how you 'ran' your home. One also wonders how you 'run' your church (I'm assuming you to be the 'runner' (overseer of the 'runnees'). ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 18, 2005 20:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything It is my opinion - that this moderation thing is getting too oppressive.  When it becomes impossible to dialogue with another person without constant nit picking about ad hominems then communicating becomes more of a burden than a joy..  Is it really necessary?  There was no question about ad hominem when G accused me of writing on an 8th grade level. which is both personal and unflattering along with the ongoing cult and myth accusations...Is my referring to Lance's incarnation doctrine one time worse than all that?  Hey! I can overlook some things - in fact I would rather overlook things myself than live with this constant scrutiny.  Could we save it for crisis situations? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Is this considered an ad hominem? "My belief is that you are in a time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection" Or do we allow the lawyers say, "it is not an ad hominem because Judy used the term "My belief is?" -- slade   FWIW Lance,  My belief is that you are in a time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection.  It is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for sin.  This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to be walked in.  jt   On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me. From: Judy Taylor Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I am dealing with ppl in different stages of spiritual growth who may not see things as I see them.  However, I do believe in such a thing as objective truth. I do believe that there is a right and a wrong, a good and an evil.  Everything is not "subjective" -   Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is this just a play on words? Was he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?  You are wrong about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief.  jt   On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said',  IMO this is not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:   1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion, 'from what I understand of the text before me'   2. All speaking of anything is partial and provisional.   3. David himself may not know how to answer John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.   4. David just might consider his approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.   5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.   From: Judy Taylor   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything   John, some people are able to separate themselves. From what I understand David to say he still gets around in a flesh body and he has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest of us both physically and emotionally.  Are you baiting him?  Is this some kind of public humiliation?   On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy.  Here is the question and we can start the discussion from this: David Miller,.  do you have sin in your life to any degree?   Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it);  event sins (such as murder, angry words,  adultery ---- this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message);  sins of the character  (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the like).   A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this stage.    Let's not speak of temptation, shall we.    Temptation is not sin, as we all know.    Such is a good topic for future discussion, but not now.   my answer is "yes."  My answer for all on this forum is "yes."   What about you, David?    Yes nor no.  Jack D Smithson The Webbmeister