|
"I don't have to accept their public teachings when
they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD' (implicit within
this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me (Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment'
to see what such as Calvin & Barth could not see) IMO, what is further
implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To reject a person's
public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them personally' so, I do
separate teaching/doing/ the Word.
When I say of Lance 'YOU ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP
OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching;
not to his person. (Is this the case, Judy)
May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate with
respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ Judy's
_expression_ when speaking of her word for word?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 14, 2005 17:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double
Standard
I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat
nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are not in
line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is a
LIE
An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't you
research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?
You are reading with the help of the powers of
darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
unfounded and evil accusation.
No accusation here, Judy. This is a simple
statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating persons both on
and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so doing.
Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your writings
to be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those
who walk after the Spirit understand God's Word.
3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance
because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you
are
doing right
here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ...
Oh well! What's new....
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am).
Let me take another run at it. On
those occasions in which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY
APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, do you not
implicitly or explictly indicate that the one(s) with whom you are
speaking do not? Would you have
genuine difficulty if recalling many such instances over the last 6
months?
What then, am I attempting to say? YOU
DO THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT
WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME
FASHION.
Do you understand?
Do you agree with this assessment?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 14, 2005
08:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT
Double Standard
No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to
be the case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the
Word of God, and not everything I
write is the Word of God because that would have to include
opinion at
times along with personal stories.
So what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it good
to be calling one
another hypocrites and disrespecting the
Moderator? Where do you think this kind
of attitude leads??
When you describe that which you
say as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by
another as OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then,
you are doing the very thing that you speak of as 'both
discouraging and wearying'. Would you not acknowledge this to be
the case?
We should make accusing each
other personally a matter to be discussed
offline.
I find these constant
accusations to be both discouraging and wearying - are we
interested in Truth or not? Why give the enemy a platform to tear
each other down.
DAVEH: I don't think you understand the
nature of my posts, Perry. I'm not talking about your
sexual experiences. I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as
practiced on TT. Is the double standard on TT
not a fair topic? Why should I have to discuss
that matter offline? Is this not relevant to all
TTers, Perry?
I find it very
telling that you make false accusations against
me.......
you suggest I might have some knowledge
of Izzy's sexual experiences,
.........which I
did not do. Go back and read my exact words if you
don't believe me. If you can't find them, I'll gladly
provide them and you can see for yourself that you are again
accusing me of something I did not do.
you suggest
that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might
have some sexual connotation,
..........That has
been suggested before on TT by other TTers, and the
moderator did nothing to discourage such comments. Now
you want to ban me from posting something other TTers can
post with no retribution. This is simply another
example of a double standard.
you try to spin Dean
up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual
references.
.........I merely stated the truth
about Deans sensitivity to such things. This was
not an ad-hom attack. Is the truth now a
problem on TT? People have said a lot more vile things
about me with no condemnation by the moderator. Why
the double standard now, Perry?
these amount to
false accusations,
DAVEH: How can
that possibly be a false accusation if it is
true, Perry? If anything, it is you who is
making false accusations about me in this
matter. Once again....a TT double
standard.
the intentions of spinning Dean up on
a banned topic
DAVEH: You are
absolutely wrong again, Perry. You simply fail to
understand the nature of my posts. My intentions are
not to spin up Dean at all. It is you who I am
trying to enlighten as to the Christian hypocrisy involving
the double standard practiced on TT with regard to
Mormons. Until you as the moderator recognize
it, why should I discontinue pointing it out every time it
occurs? Is not the TT double standard an acceptable
discussion topic?
Charles
Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, you suggest I might have some
knowledge of Izzy's sexual experiences, then you
suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives"
might have some sexual connotation, then you
try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by
sexual references. These amount to false
accusations, with the intentions of spinning
Dean up on a banned topic. Any more posts from you
containing sexual references and I will have to take you
off the forum until you agree not to do so. Take any
issues you have up with me, offline, at this address, not
on the forum.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:29:32 -0800
* Please try to /refrain /from making
sexual references, especially /false accuastions/.*
DAVEH: Let's see if I understand
this, Perry. Recently I asked some questions that
were no more sexually oriented than what you commonly
make, Dean then claimed foul......and you banned further
discussion based on the /perception /you and Dean had
about what those comments might have implied.
Now you have made a comment that
can be perceived to be sexually charged..........
*If lucky, you may become one of his many spirit
wives! *
..........and you don't want to
recognize the double standard? It is interesting
that when you or other TTers make any kind of
denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with sexual
implications, nothing is considered off limits.
When I point out this obvious double standard, I am
cautioned by the moderator to /refrain /from bringing
the discussion to the TT table under the guise of
making/ false accusations/. It must be convenient
to have a moderator who can see non-LDS posters through
one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely
different perspective of LDS posters through the other,
more critical eye. I suppose if one has an ax to
grind against LDS theology, and is not embarrassed to
publicly admit such....then it should not surprise
anybody to find that person practicing a double
standard. The curious part about this is that it
happens on a forum called /TruthTalk/, where /truth /is
presupposed to be the dominating factor, yet it seems to
be suppressed when it comes to recognizing the Christian
hypocrisy found here.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
* Please
try to /refrain /from making sexual references,
especially /false accuastions/.* This is not the forum
for that? I am sure there are many discussion forums
about sex if that type of discussion interests you.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive
Comments
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:07:35 -0800
**If lucky, you may become one of his many
spirit wives! **
DAVEH: I wonder
if Dean is going to rebuke you for making such
sexually suggestive comments, Perry! If
not, will we then have another example of
hypocritical Christianity in TT?
Charles
Perry Locke wrote:
Just be sure you
remember your secret password and secret handshake
so Joseph Smith will allow you entrance into
heaven. *If lucky, you may become one of his many
spirit wives! *
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off...
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST
I guess I never got to know you,
Christine--but hope to meet you in the
great
beyond--you may be required to testify at the
Bar of God as to what you
have seen and
heard on TT--
Blainerb
In a message
dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am signing off. I have
gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think
it
would be beneficial to my GPA to
bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I
have learned a great deal. May the
Lord bless you and keep you all.
It would be cool to meet you all
in real life some day. But maybe not all in
the same room. I wonder how that would
turn out... :-)
-Christine Miller
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
|
