Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment

[Judy Taylor]

Couldn't agree more regarding tradition and dead works which comprise "religion" and I would think what is going on right now in St Peters Square at the Vatican would be a stench in God's nostril; all those poor souls out there weeping for the alter christos.  As for this country.  Well our judiciary just publicly starved a girl to death and I've not seen one word from any of you Canadians regarding that.  Why?  judyt     On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 05:38:56 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Your country ranks right up there on the RELIGION scale. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the fundamentalism of such as GWB with that of DM, JT and, LS and, those countries in the near, middle and far east.   GOD HATES RELIGION! He hates it when he finds it in me and, in you. LEGALISM IS A COMPONENT OF RELIGION.  From: ShieldsFamily   Judy, perhaps my husband could assist Lance with his vision as he is an eye surgeon.  But then there�s the problem of his hearing.  Oh�.and the stony heart, and eh�.feet of clay?  Perhaps Lance needs to come to the USA for good healthcare??? Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Lance, where are you at?  IMO you need help.  Maybe a visit to Izzy's husband would be good for starters and we can go from there.  I continue to wonder how and why everything DavidM writes seems to get you so steamed.  Where is your peace??     On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:09:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:  There was no ATTACK of any sister in my 'seeing'. There certainly is NO  MERIT WHATSOEVER IN PURSUING THIS FURTHER. Get yourself a megaphone  and......       From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > John wrote: > > > How many times did I correct Judy prior to my complaint? > > > > Once. > > > > I received Judy's first post with the "comfortable in sin" phrase > on March > > 27, 2005 at 2:57 pm.  On March 28, 2005 at 8:19 am, I received a > post from > > you where you declared that Judy had completely rejected the > gospel.  You > > said that she had no clue about faith being reckoned as > righteousness and > > that she was ever knowing and never learning.  On the same day, I > received > a > > post from Judy at 11:52 am where she explains how she is not > comfortable > > with sin and that something is wrong with the concept of being > comfortable > > in sin.  She explained that a person is doubleminded if he thinks > himself > to > > be righteous while at the same time is comfortable with sin.  On > 1:01 pm > on > > the same date, I received a post from you where you started to > complain > > about her phrase "comfortable in sin."  You declared Judy to be > dishonest > > and to be someone with whom you did not want to continue a > discussion. > > > > John wrote: > > > If you can count to five, you will have a chance at getting the > right > > > answer > > > > Count again, John. > > > > John wrote: > > > Judy Taylor uses three very specific words and in > > > this order  "comfortable with sin."   Where did she > > > get this specific wording? > > > Hint:  from a post I had sent to Terry before Judy stuck > > > her nose into the thread.  She is using my very words  -- > > > quoting, if you will. > > > > If she was using your very words, then why are you complaining?  > She did > not > > use your specific words.  She read your phrase about being > comfortable > with > > a person keeping their sin and she abbreviated it to the idea of a > person > > being comfortable with sin and a person being comfortable in sin.  > Her > logic > > to do so was fine, but at this point, you felt that your position > was > being > > misrepresented, but more than that, you started accusing her of > misquoting > > you.  You keep vascilating back and forth from arguing that she > used your > > very words to arguing that she misquoted you.  You can't have it > both > ways, > > John. > > > > John wrote: > > > How many times does one have to ignore and offer > > > correction before the other becomes obvious in his/her > > > offensive behavior? > > > > I'm sure Judy is wondering this the same as I do.  How long do we > ignore > and > > offer correction toward you before you become obvious in your > offensive > > behavior?  I would say we need to be upfront and speak what is on > our > minds. > > In other words, stop ignoring.  Correct in the spirit of love and > meekness. > > > > John wrote: > > > Why has she refused to acknolwdge her "misunderstanding?" > > > I find it nowhere in print. > > > > Because as it has now become clear, she is not misunderstanding.  > Judy has > > exposed the deception under which you and Gary are operating. > > > > John wrote: > > > Why have you, David, decided to waste time in dealing > > > with an issue that is of no ultimate merit? > > > > There is ultimate merit in this issue.  First, there is the merit > of > > understanding the truth.  Second, there is the sister who has > been > attacked > > and deserves some defense when she is in the right.  Third, there > is the > > problem of self deception that needs to be exposed in you.  > Fourth, > judgment > > comes upon those who bear false witness and offends one of these > little > > ones.  Therefore, it behooves us to warn them of their error if > per chance > > God gives them opportunity to repent. > > > > John wrote: > > > I have a right to complain of misrepresentation and > > > misquotation if that is what I think took place. > > > > Of course you do, but if you are shown to be mistaken and you > cannot prove > > that she misquoted you, then you need to apologize for the false > accusation. > > > > John wrote: > > > I have a right to continue in that complaint when the > > > offending person refuses to acknowledge my several > > > explanations. > > > > There should be a limit to how often you continue to complain.  At > some > > point, both have spoken their mind.  Also, when you are shown to > be in the > > wrong, you should be humble enough and gracious enough to admit > it > > (especially when you are harping about grace so much!). > > > > John wrote: > > > I have (perhaps) a duty to continue the complaint when the > > > offender selects a phrase from my post, divests that phrase > > > from the written and immediate context,  and pursues her/his > > > negativity. > > > > You should perhaps consider that you are perpetuating the > negativity by > not > > hearing this dear Christian sister.  If you agree with Judy's > > uncomfortableness with sin, then you should be agreeing with her > _expression_ > > of this instead of being offended because she understands your > > comfortableness with the rigtheous keeping their sin as being > abhorrent. > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller. > > > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that > you may > know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > >