date:20051208





DAVEH:  Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this, Lance.  
While I can give you a longer version than before, I certainly can't
give you all the details, as I have neither the time (I do need some
sleep!) nor the knowledge.  But...

    As you must know, I believe God created us spiritually prior to the
creation of the world.  IOWwe were spirit beings in a pre-mortal
existence.  It is my belief that God the Father consists of a spirit
housed in a physical body.  He created us as spirit beings, with the
intent that we could (if we desire and are obedient) become not only
one with him, but also perfect (complete, as Perry would suggest) as he
is perfect.

    That basic process is known by LDS folks as eternal progressioneffectively
progressing from a created spirit being to one who is like God.  As has
been often quoted, one LDS authority said...

As man is, God once was.  As God is, man may become.

.which is a catchy phrase that tends to excite many Christians,
yet it implies the thinking of many LDS folks who believe we have the
potential to become like GodIFF we so desire to fulfill our
potential to become one with the Lord by being obedient to him.  Those
who do so, bring glory to the Lord.  Those who don't will suffer
damnation (hell) to some extent, by impeding their eternal progression.

    In order that the spirit beings in the pre-mortal existence can
progress to the point of gaining a glorified resurrected body of flesh
and bone, as the Savior now has, it was necessary for us to be born
into a world created perfectly, so to speak.  Adam and Eve were created
as immortals, and as such were incapable of death.  Not only that, but
they were incapable of understanding the difference between good and
evilthey were innocent.  Yes, they were pure and undefiled, but yet
they were also naive in their innocence.quite unlike God who knows
the difference between good and evil.

    By placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden,
and then commanding them not to eat of that tree, explaining that they
would die IF they partook of the forbidden fruit, God made it possible
for them to not only gain the knowledge needed to become like him, but
he also provided a way they could shed their bodies of flesh and
bloodby dying, which separates the spirit from the body.

    In partaking of the forbidden fruit, not only did A&E subject
themselves to the possibility of physical death (which we define as the
separation of the spirit from the physical body), but they also were
separated from God.which we define as spiritual death.    In
essence, this resulted in A&E experiencing two forms of
hellfirst the separation from God, and second being returned to the
state of a spirit being, without the ability to overcome that deficit. 
Hence, they would remain in that eternal state of damnation forever, if
it were not for God's plan of salvation.

    That plan of salvation was prepared before the foundation of the
world, and Jesus was chosen to implement it.  God prepared his Son to
be a perfect sacrifice to atone for A&E's (and all of
mankind's) transgressions.  Not only that, but the Son he foreordained
to save us from our (specifically, A&E's in this instance) sins
also was able to overcome physical death in a process we know as the
resurrection.  Neither of these impediments to our progression were
things we could overcome on our own though.  We had to have a Savior do
that for us.  Due to his resurrection, all will be resurrected and gain
an immortal physical body.  Due to his atonement, all will have the
opportunity to have their sins remitted and return to heaven IF they so
desire and are willing to be obedient to the Lord's commandments.  That
is why it is through his grace that we are saved...nothing we could
do on our own could accomplish that salvation.  Once Jesus fulfilled
that mantle of salvation (both physical and spiritual), the only thing
standing between us and God is ourselves.  Effectively...We can
either keep the commandments, and return to the Lord in heaven, or we
can eschew them and suffer damnation (impedance) to our eternal
progression.

    I hope that answers your query, Lance.  If you want a slightly
deeper (and different) view of the Fall, I can post an interesting
perspective of the Fall that was recently posted to an LDS
Forum.just let me know if that appeals to you.


Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  PLEASE DAVE,
   
  I would appreciate the longer
explanation so as not to confuse those less informed about
Mormon/Christian distinctives.
  When you speak of 'god', I'd
appreciate you supplying the 'god history'. When you speak of  jesus
(your jesus), I'd appreciate you giving us real Mormon teaching. And
on
   
  PLEASE SUPPLY THE REAL DEAL! I'm
quite serious on this, Dave.
   
  thanks,
   
  Lance
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





DAVEH:  I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, despite
I'm sure that you really don't think I understand your perspective. 
Let me say that I understand what you are saying very well, Terry.  I
just don't think you understand my question (about the reason), as it
is based upon my biases formed due to my LDS beliefs.  I really don't
view God as being so egotistical that he needs our love simply for
selfish reasons.  He does not need to test us, as he knows us better
than we do.  While I do believe it is important for us to take the test
(so to speak) for our own benefit, that is not the only reason God has
placed us here IMHO.

    I do agree with you about needing to obey..for our own good. 
And, you are rightdisobedience does not make us stronger.  As we
can see from A&E's disobedience, it did have a detrimental effect
on their existence.  However, sometimes one has to make difficult
choices.  IMO, A&E were in that situation.  

    It is not my desire to argue over this, Terry.  We just have
different beliefs about our purpose for being here.and I appreciate
you sharing yours with me.  In my (tonight's) response to Lance's post 
of a few days ago, I'll try to answer some of the questions I imagine
you might have.
    

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
I truly wish you could see this ,Dave, because it is important to our
understanding. The tree was there for a reason.  God could have
programmed every creature to behave exactly as He wanted them to, but
He did not.  He even gave angels a choice.  He wants us to come to Him
out of love, just as He comes to us out of love.  To do that, we must
make a choice.  We CHOOSE to love Him.  We show that love by living to
please Him.  We show our SELFishness by doing what we want to do.  We
do not need to disobey to be stronger.  We need to obey, for our own
good.
You do not keep your wife in a bubble, but you also do not tell your
wife to go out and play around with drugs or catch aids so that she can
be more resistant to these things. ( I use your wife here because I do
not know if you have children or other family. )
  
  
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  

 God's desire was for them to remain pure and innocent, just as
would be
the desire of any father for his children.

DAVEH:   I probably shouldn't intrude on Blaine's discussion with you,
Terry.  But, it seems to me that God could easily have kept A&E pure
and innocent, had he wanted to do so.  For instance, he could
either have kept Satan out of the Garden of Eden, or he could have not
placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil there.   Orhe could
simply have not commanded them not to partake.   But he didn't do any
of those things.  IMO, God wanted A&E to transgress for a reason.

    FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure
and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children
will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  I
see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your kid in
a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he enters
the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of
nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such
hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the
strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack
later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable?  I see that somewhat
as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good and evil.  I hope that
makes a little sense, Terry.  (Though I'm sure some TTers will take
exception.)  FTRI don't think that is the sole reason for the
tree though.

    It is obvious that God did not expect his creations to remain
pure and innocent, and he knew that they would not remain so in the
situation he placed them.  But it was necessary for them to go through
that process for a specific reason, as I don't believe God was just
wishfully hoping they would remain pure and innocent.

    I do appreciate you sharing your belief about it though, Terry.

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
   God's desire was for them to remain pure and innocent, just
as
would be
the desire of any father for his children.  The tree was there to
give
them a choice.  We always have a choice to make.  If eating the fruit
of that tree gave you the ability to know good from evil, what else
would you call it?
==
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  




In a message dated 12/5/2005 6:15:11 A.M. Mountain
Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Just the facts, Dave. Fact one: Adam and Eve did sin.
Fact two: God hates sin.  
Fact three: Getting people to sin is the top priority of Satan.
It's over.  We know who to blame.  Nothing to discuss.
  

Blainerb:  If it is all so cut and
dried,
then answer this question:  Why wa

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E -- Huh, Judy ???





Somehow ,  I missed this.

DAVEH:  My apologies, Bishop.  I took Judy's comment out of the context
of her post of December 6, which you may have missed.  I will repost it
below

++
++
++
++
I think they did nto have to transgress and
if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache, suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would the Lord
want that for them/us?
 
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:09:38 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Do you mind if I ask why this subject is
so interesting to you??

DAVEH:  Because the Protestant view seems rather narrow and lacks depth
of understanding, as I understand it.   I don't mean that to sound
offensive, but rather an observation from what I've learned from asking
you folks about it.

    Let me ask you a few questions, Judy.   Do you think the Lord
wanted A&E to know the difference between good and evil?  And, if
A&E had not transgressed, do you think they would have
known the difference?  Alsodo you think God created A&E while
knowing that they would definitely transgress, or do you think there
was a possibility that they would not transgress?

Judy Taylor wrote: 
You have brought this up in the past on TT
DaveH but it didn't last long because there is no place to go with it.
By definition all anyone could come up with
is their own speculation.  God wasn't caught blindsided. He knew
and prepared for this "BEFORE the foundation
of the world" so it's too late for "shoulda, coulda, woulda" now.
Do you mind if I ask why this subject is
so interesting to you??
 
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:42:09 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DAVEH:  May I suggest another topic of interest to me?  I am
curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have
happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed.  Does
that discussion ever come up with you folks?

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 
   Look  --  what are we going to discuss here on TT?   We have
pretty much said all that can be said about any number of subjects. 

 
jd 

++
++
++
++

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
   
  Judy wrote:
  
I think they did nto have to
transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves and
the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache,
suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why
would the Lord
  want that for them/us?
  
  
  
  Somehow ,  I missed this.   The
answer above completely misses the point of both the "plan of
salvation" and the account of Adam and Eve including their creation.   
Secondly,   exactly what was the question asked by Judy?   Why would
the Lord want THAT for them/us?  ---     That  ??   There is
only one other consideration in her comment, so it must refer to
"that"   --   if they had not they would
have saved themselves and the rest of   humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery
that has been the human lot since then    
  
  Does anyone out there see the problem, here?  
Why would God want THAT (if they had not
they would have saved themselves and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache,
suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then ) FOR US   --   WHY WOULD HE  WANT ADAM AND EVE TO BE SINLESS AND SAVE US
ALL THAT MISERY?  And that would be a bad thing?   "We" are grossly
confused , here.   And to think that the Holy Spirit gave Judy this
thought is about to make me an ATHEIST   !! 
   
   
  jd
  
   
   
   
   
   
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:40:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E
  
  
  
  
  He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?
  
  if they had not they would have saved
themselves and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache,
suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.
  
  
  DAVEH:   Thank you two for your
comments, both of which focus in one facet of the A&E situation of
which I am most keen.   One of my earliest religious memories was a
comment a neighborhood kid made to me in which he said A&E screwed
it up for us by taking the forbidden fruit.  He explained that had they
not transgressed, we would all live forever without experiencing
death.  Even though the kid was less than religious later on in life,
his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now you folks
have sparked that fire again.
  
    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have
transgressed ?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at
some point---probably much soone

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





DAVEH:  It is not that I disagree with what you said below,
Judy.But, I think you've gone off topic.  We are discussing
A&E's transgression, not our own.  As soon as they were cast out of
the Garden for their transgression, I think they pretty well knew they
had no grounds to accuse Him of being unloving
or unjust.  To think that God put them through that test just to prove to them the
consequences of disobedience seems a little illogical to me, Judy.  

    Ponder that God foreordained Jesus to be A&E's Savior even
before A&E were created.  He then created a universe just for
A&E, and then a planet with all the goodies to keep A&E alive,
and then a Garden full of everything they would need to live forever in
a very pure and comfortable environment.  Then God plants one evil tree
(from your perspective) and turns Satan loose in paradise to have a go
at tempting A&E just to test A&E in an effort to prove to
A&E that they will not have grounds
to accuse Him of being unloving or unjust.  Whew!!!.To
me that sure seems like a lot of effort for minimal return, Judy.  

    Please don't think that I am trying to minimize the import of this
topicnothing could be further from the truth.  To me, understanding
the circumstances of the Fall is extremely important.  It just seems
from my perspective that the commonly believed Christian perspective
regarding the Fall doesn't really explain why it happened, which is why
I find it interesting to learn what you believe about it.  Thank you
for sharing your thoughts.

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  
  When all of us stand before God at the
great white throne judgment... we have to know where we failed.  Noone 
  will have grounds to accuse Him of
being unloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and 
  we will know this without anyone having to tell us...  So the test is
for us rather than for Him.  judyt
   
  On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
To test them DaveH

DAVEH:  ???   Do you not think God knew their faith, Judy?  Why do you
think God would need to test them, since he created themknowing
they would transgress?

Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  To test them DaveH. 
Faith is ALWAYS tested.
   
  On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
He did not plan for them to fall.

DAVEH:  If that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry?

    Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the
fall, would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put
the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden?  IOWthere
must have been a reason for God to put the tree there.   Seems like it
would be important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed
that tree there.   Why do you think, Terry?

Terry Clifton wrote: 

This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to
accept.
God is omnicient,  He knew they would sin.  He did not plan for
them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.
As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.
=
  
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?

if they had not they would have
saved themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the
heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.


DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me
in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden
fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live
forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than
religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being
intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.

    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have
transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at
some point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's
children would have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who
descended from A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what
are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?!

    Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the
world, when it was inevitable.

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

Did they have navels like we have?

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500

Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us  --  
which includes the fact that they were created "mortal,"  hence, the The 
Tree of Life , in the garden.

jd

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:27:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E

So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2.   and when Cain killed Able  --  
who was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where did those people come from?   I 
personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.   
But that is not a  popular opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  --  
Cain was afraid of his own people

jd

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 EST
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E

In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into 
mortal beings

I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE Months AFTER 
the FACT!
Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with the couple 
being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as 
follows:
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I 
have gotten a man from the Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  But no timetable is 
given.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not 
have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced 
out of the garden?

In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered 
it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest 
commands to keep. ;-)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall??  
  What sacrilege is this??   :>)

Blainerb

In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to 
think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The 
command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 
1:28.

Terry

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God 
are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none 
of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve 
would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never 
knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they would be eternally 
pure and goody-good righteous..  Is that what you think the Lord really 
wanted?

In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of 
life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God 
wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was 
promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One 
leads to life and the other to death.

 judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

--
"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@mail.innglory.org

Yes, I missed that point. Did you get mine?

From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:41:24 -0800

DAVEH:   I think you missed the point, Perry.  Terry said he wouldn't 
speculate, in the same sentence in which he speculated.  I found that 
rather curious.don't you?

Charles Perry Locke wrote:

Dave, are you nwext going to tell us that monkeys and hoses are your 
spirit brothers, too? For that matter, what biblical evidence supports ANY 
of your LDS theories?

*monkeys and horses do not have a soul.*

DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry?  
What Biblical evidence supports that theory?

Terry Clifton wrote:

I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that *monkeys and horses 
do not have a soul.*

==

Dave Hansen wrote:

*He knew they would sin.  **He did not plan for them to fall.  He 
planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*

DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will 
admit to being biased by my belief that *He did plan for them to fall*.

/*As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do 
is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/

DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe 
to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would have 
transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to 
transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of 
history would have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would 
proportionally be very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider 
another example.  Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid 
smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices many 
it seems.   Sowould you reasonably expect any but a few of A&E's 
descendants to withstand the temptations that Eve failed to avoid?

Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses or 
whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden 
fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?

Terry Clifton wrote:

This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have 
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to 
accept.
God is omnicient,  *He knew they would sin.*  *He did not plan for 
them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*
/*As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do 
is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/

=

Dave Hansen wrote:

*He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?*

*if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been 
the human lot since then.*

DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one 
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my 
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to 
me in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden 
fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all 
live forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was 
less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as 
being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.

I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me 
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not transgressed, 
do you think none of their descendants would have transgressed?  In 
my experience, the best way to get a kid to do something, is to 
forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at some 
point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's children would 
have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who descended 
from A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what are the 
chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?!

Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the 
world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was 
it expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe 
that as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our 
Savior from before the world was created.that it was planned?  
(Please let me know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently 
don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see why 
your perspective perplexes me?  It doesn't seem logical.  Like I 
saidperhaps I'm missing something about the way you understand 
it.

Judy wrote:

I think they did nto have to transgress and *if they had not they 
would have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been 
the human lot since then.*  Why would the Lord

want that for them/us?

T

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





being over protective through fear is one thing

DAVEH:   That seems to be a tactic of some Christians.  For instance,
the whole commonly believed scenario about hell being a literal
punitive torturous form of punishment is an example that I see driving
some people away from Christianity.  I'm sure there will be some SPers
who will point to their successes by using such methodology, but that
does not necessarily offset the numbers of those who are turned off by
such rhetoric.

This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.

DAVEH:   Have you ever read of some of the examples where groups of
people were decimated by diseases brought into their environment by
outsiders?  

God has given us an immune system which should
be able to throw off anything that comes our way

DAVEH:  I tend to agree with you on this to a point, Judy.  Though I
don't view it as an immune system,
but rather as inoculation.  We aren't born with a resistance to sin,
but we achieve it as we become one with the Lord.  I think it was Paul
who explained the analogy of putting on the armor of God.  We aren't
born with that armor, but acquire it as we grow in Christ.  

The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full
of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.

DAVEH:  Then why do you think God kept A&E from partaking of it
after they transgressed?

The other tree - the one the serpent was
promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.

DAVEH::   You've lost me on that one, Judy.  Are you saying the tree of
knowledge of good and evil is earthly,
sensual, and demonic?    If so, it sounds like you are
implying that God planted something evil in the Garden of Eden in an
effort to tempt A&E.  If that is what you are suggesting, do you
have Biblical evidence to support your theory?  

    FWIWI had the impression that Gen 1 suggests exactly the
opposite

12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

.That the trees God created were good.   Reading Gen 2..

[9] And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree
that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also
in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

...does not give me the impression that the tree of
knowledge of good and evil was in itself evil.  If you
disagree, I'd like to understand why you think such.  

Judy Taylor wrote:

  
  
  DaveH writes: 
     FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children
  pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their
children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the
world.  
   
  Not necessarily; being over protective
through fear is one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment
in the fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and
watchful eye on their side.
   
  I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise
your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But
once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to
catching a slew of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid
be exposed to such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the
ravages in the strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to
eventually attack later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable? 
   
  This is what the wisdom of the world
teaches.  But we are fearfully and wonderfully made and God has
given us an immune system which should be able to throw off anything
that comes our way when not compromised by sin.
   
   I see that somewhat as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good
and evil.  I hope that makes a little sense, Terry.  (Though I'm sure
some TTers will take exception.)  FTRI don't think that is the sole
reason for the tree though.
   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are the two
kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of
good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from. 
  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is
earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads
to life and the other to death.
  
  
  

judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  


-- 
~~~
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@mail.innglory.org


Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us  --  which includes the fact that they were created "mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden.    
 
jd  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E





So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2.   and when Cain killed Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where did those people come from?   I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.   But that is not a  popular opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  --  Cain was afraid of his own people
 
jd
 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E



In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings
 
I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:  
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  But no timetable is given.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous...  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.
 judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org


So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2.   and when Cain killed Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where did those people come from?   I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.   But that is not a  popular opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  --  Cain was afraid of his own people
 
jd
 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E



In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings
 
I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:  
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  But no timetable is given.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous..  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.
 judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements


Demon creature !  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:24:55 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements


















JD, maybe you'd rather see my dog, Lacey. iz




[Image removed] 





OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 

These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org




In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   But why  did they not have children until they were 1) 
  changed into mortal beings
   
  I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE 
  Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with 
the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as 
follows:  
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she 
conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the 
Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  But no 
timetable is given.

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!  
 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed 
into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to 
  God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a 
  great idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the 
Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   
:>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is 
  no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had 
  been no fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came 
  prior to the fall.  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as 
a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking 
of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  
self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be 
lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good 
from evil and not even caring.  But they would be 
eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that what you 
think the Lord really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard 
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are 
  the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, 
  peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted 
  His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the 
  serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So 
  take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to 
  death.
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org


Ridiculous.   When Paul told us to not be like the world, he never intended to be teaching us to leave the world.  Its for darn sure that the church is not going to supply the education these "demon creatures" (a BS line if there ever was one) need and deserve.   If its up to the church,  these kids are all hell bound with no recourse. , of course.  I can't even believe you made this statement.  But keep obeying that 7th day thing.   God will be happy.
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:22:42 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E






I can only hope that my darling grandchildren will never blend in with those demonic creatures that attend the Government Schools. J  iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E
 



 

 

Actually, my youngest daughter  (22 years old) has told me why she has decided to NOT hoime school her children   ..    and it is   for much of the same reason as seen in the opening line below.   She told me that each     of the eight friends she had at Fresno Pacific U (who were all home schooled) had a very difficult time  getting along with those in the school or "fitting in."  

 

My oldest daughter  (38 years old)  home schools up to junior high age for the same reason.  

 

jd 

 

 

 
 -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E


While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  

 

NONSENSE

That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like a greenhouse.

Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127

The Next Generation of LeadershipThe most important people are the ones that history glosses over and such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes up to 95% for people above age
 25 and they're three times more likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than the general population.Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure their children aren't led astray by the dominant culture are getting extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious beliefs.The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary o
f homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness, and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.

And the nay sayers said "O NO how are they going to learn to Socialize?"

Judy Taylor  wrote:


DaveH writes: 

   FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  

 

Not necessarily; being over protective through fear is one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment in the fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and watchful eye on their side.

 

I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable? 

 

This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.  Bu

[TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements


	



		






 
  
  
   


 
  
  And our intelligent cat,
  Callie, loves to watch TV! 
  
 



   
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
   

 

   
  
  
  
  
 


These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R)
Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge









And our cat is color-coordinated with the
dog! J 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
8:52 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute
to Perusal knowledge



 

Please do not try to deceive us, IZ.  Shabby!
Just shabby!!  We know rental kids when we see them.  Probably from
rentakid.com or Family for a day.org. I've seen that dog somewhere before
too.  Think it was a "Front line" ad.
Terry


ShieldsFamily wrote: 

PS 
I forgot to brag—err, I mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter
has been playing the piano for the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to
play after graduating from the Academy, and he is teaching her to play. 
But they can “play” the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy,
can the 3 year old belt out “I’ve Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in
My Heart” with drama! iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
3:01 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute
to Perusal knowledge



 







 





Why are you forcing  
the obvious pretense of merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of
this DISCUSSION group. NOT a picture party or a pity
party but a  discussion group  ???   
!!    The Mormon look is obvious in the fair skin and blondness of
hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain
for those  western wonderers  (or
is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??)
and America's
only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a
note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely
disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the implied
meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields
family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields 
(!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more
on that latter.  





 





 





Merry Christmas  !!?? 
yeah right !!!.    





 





Hail perusal, or unusual or per usual or whatever the
correct wording might be  !  





 





KATHY



, DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO
JUICE  ???  !! 





jd







   





 





 





 





 





 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements






 
  
  
   


 
  
  
  The homeschooler's gospel
  band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis.
  izzy
  
  
 
 




   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  [Image
  removed] 
  
  
   


OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 


   
  
  
  
  
  
 




These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 3.0.
Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again


finally, a sympathizer !!!  
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 19:39:27 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



I just don't see why they call you the accuser.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



Not at all, my little legalistic friend.   Let's see if you can catch the meaning of this post:   the purpose of the words below is to besmirch CS Lewis.   They became your words the second you accepted them as truth AND decided that Lewis was evil.   These words became your words and you shared these words with the group.   Why is this a big deal to you?   You speak evil of many people  --  its kinda your M.O.   You are THE authority on whose good and whose bad.   Judy runs a close second  --  and her  witch-web hunt  skills are fast approaching  your level of expertise.   You should be saying,  "Thanks, JD,  you finally get it.   I am right -- that is why I share with you."
 
jd -Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:23:05 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Adjusting your claims again?
D"eegan puts him down as evil""The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil."
 
ONE Problem, you can not get anything straight, they were not MY WORDS http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm


Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). 
 

If the "Effect of C S Lewis' words are seen as EVIL what is that to me?
See thou to it!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Spoken like a true legalist.  The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil.  
 
jd 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



That is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 
 Read your post and figure it out.   "Games"   is what you are all about,  Kevin.   The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is.   And don't talk to me about "third requests."  You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you.   Once again,  The gamemeister in you has the rule.  
 
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.   
 
You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.
 
Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil
 
I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge





DAVEH:   ROTFLOL.Good one, Terry!   
:-D 

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
Please do not try to deceive us, IZ.  Shabby! Just shabby!!  We know
rental kids when we see them.  Probably from rentakid.com or Family for
a day.org. I've seen that dog somewhere before too.  Think it was a
"Front line" ad.
Terry
  
  
ShieldsFamily wrote:
  


 




PS  I forgot
to brag—err, I
mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter has been playing the
piano for
the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to play after graduating from
the
Academy, and he is teaching her to play.  But they can “play”
the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy, can the 3 year old belt
out “I’ve
Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart” with drama! iz

  


-- 
~~~
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@mail.innglory.org



DAVEH:   I think you missed the point, Perry.  Terry said he wouldn't 
speculate, in the same sentence in which he speculated.  I found that 
rather curious.don't you?



Charles Perry Locke wrote:



Dave, are you nwext going to tell us that monkeys and hoses are your 
spirit brothers, too? For that matter, what biblical evidence supports 
ANY of your LDS theories?




*monkeys and horses do not have a soul.*

DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry?  
What Biblical evidence supports that theory?




Terry Clifton wrote:

I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that *monkeys and 
horses do not have a soul.*

==

Dave Hansen wrote:

*He knew they would sin.  **He did not plan for them to fall.  He 
planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*


DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will 
admit to being biased by my belief that *He did plan for them to 
fall*.


/*As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All we can 
do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/


DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is 
safe to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants 
would have transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too 
long to transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other 
villains of history would have remained angels?  I submit to you 
that there would proportionally be very few who would not have 
transgressed.  Consider another example.  Adults have preached to 
kids ad nauseam to avoid smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just 
denying them such, entices many it seems.   Sowould you 
reasonably expect any but a few of A&E's descendants to withstand 
the temptations that Eve failed to avoid?


Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses 
or whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the 
forbidden fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?


Terry Clifton wrote:



This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you 
have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be 
hard to accept.
God is omnicient,  *He knew they would sin.*  *He did not plan for 
them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*
/*As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can 
do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/

=


Dave Hansen wrote:



*He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?*

*if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has 
been the human lot since then.*



DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in 
one facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of 
my earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid 
made to me in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking 
the forbidden fruit.  He explained that had they not 
transgressed, we would all live forever without experiencing 
death.  Even though the kid was less than religious later on in 
life, his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now 
you folks have sparked that fire again.


I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let 
me say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not 
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have 
transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do 
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that 
at some point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's 
children would have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the 
billions who descended from A&E, none would ever have 
transgressed?  Just what are the chances of that 
happening.zilch?!?!?!


Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the 
world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only 
was it expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you 
believe that as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to 
be our Savior from before the world was created.that it was 
planned?  (Please let me know if you do not believe such.)  Yet 
you apparently don't believe that God wanted it to happen that 
way.  Do you see why your perspective perplexes me?  It doesn't 
seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about 
the way you understand it.




Judy wrote:

I think they did nto have to transgress and *if they had not they 
would have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has 
been the human lot since then.*  Why would the Lord

want that for them/us?


Terry Clifton wrote:

God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat 
liver, no matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter 
how many times I am given that option.  God will give you the 
option, but it is no

Re: [TruthTalk] Mr. Cleo



Blaine, the resident TT astrologer says, " and the sunstone with the 
round-faced image of god".  Is god's face round like the sun? Does the sun 
have a face like god's? Does god have a literal face? Are god and the sun 
the same that anyone should combine them in an image? Can you say "Sun 
worship"? "Graven Images"?


"When the suun is in the seventh house...and Ju-pi-ter aligns with 
Mars.Pce will guide the pla-a-nuts, and lve will guide the 
stars, this is the dawning of the age of aquarius, the age of 
aguarius...aquris...aquriiiuuus".


Gee, that was fun. I haven't sung that since Pluto was in the doghouse.

Blaine, can you explain what the age of aquarius is, if we are now in the 
age of aquarius, and how that squares with your mormon beliefs, or how it 
does not?


Do you believe Nostradamus to be an authentic prognosticator of the future? 
What evidence do you have of the truth of his prophecies?


Thanks,
Perry


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 
21:44:19 EST




Blainerb:  Sounds more like some of Joseph  Smith's tom-foolery!  He was
famous for saying ridiculous things for a  laugh!  Once while the Nauvoo 
temple
was being built, and the sunstone with  the round-faced image of God  
carved on
it was about to be put into place,  someone asked if that was what God 
looked

like.  He replied that it was,  except his nose was just a smidgeon wider!
Both he and the man who asked  the question got a good laugh!  Where is 
your

sense of humor, Kevin?

In a message dated 12/7/2005 9:14:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Joe was an Occultist who sacrificed  animals

Kevin Deegan  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The angel  appeared on September 22 every year four years in a row.  None 
of

the  other dates corresponded to Trumpets.

It had more to do with being a observer of SIGNS in the  heavens. Jo was an
Astrologer who did all his "work" on days of Occult and  Astrologic 
significance

Pagans observe the "holy day" of the Autumn Equinox on the date  in 1827
also.  The "angel" of light had appeared on the night  of the Autumnal 
equinox,

between midnight and dawn--hours auspicious  for a magical invocation

In what follows most Mormons will not find a story with which they are
familiar. Instead, they will discover that Joseph Smith  evidently 
participated

extensively in magical  pursuits and that he shared with others of his
contemporaries a  magic world view of the world. For myself, I have found 
that the

'official  version' of early Mormon history is sometimes incomplete in its
presentation  and evaluation of evidence, and therefore inaccurate in 
certain
respects."  (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Introduction, Quinn  
pages

xx-xxi)


In discussing the discovery of the Book of Mormon,  Quinn notes that Smith
prayed to be  guided to the plates for three years in succession on the 
autumnal

equinox. On September  21, 1823, for example, Smith prayed under the full
moon on a Sunday night that was ruled by his  own ruling planet, Jupiter.  
The
hours of his prayer and vision were ruled by planets and the  moon, making 
the
time particularly propitious for the summoning of and  communing with a 
good
spirit. (Smith also owned a talisman which had the magic seal of  Jupiter 
and

the Latin words "Confirmo O Deus potentissimus" on one side, and  the
astrological symbol for Jupiter, Jupiter's magic number (136), and a  magic 
table in

Hebrew lettering that added up to 136 on the other side.)
Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View D. MICHAEL QUINN
_http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/magic.htm_
(http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/magic.htm)

Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23,  1805 during the first Decan of
Capricorn whose ruling planet  is Jupiter, which is also the governing 
planet for

the year  1805.
Dr. Durham director of the LDS Institute of  Religion at the University of
Utah as well as president of the Mormon  History Association "...The 
purpose of

the Table of Jupiter is  talismanic magic [sic] was to be able to call upon
the celestial intelligences assigned to the particular talisman to  assist 
one

in all endeavors. The names of the deities...  who could be invoked by the
Table were always written on the tailsman or  represented by various 
numbers;
three such names were written on Joseph  Smith's talisman... Abbah, Father; 
El

Ab, Father is God; and Josiphiel,  Johovah speaks for God... When properly
invoked, with  Jupiter being very powerful and ruling in the heavens, these
intelligences by the power of ancient magic guaranteed to the  possessor of 
this
tailsman to gain of riches and favor and power  and love and peace and to 
confirm

honors and dignities and councils.  Tailsmanic magic further declared that
any one who worked  skillfully with this Jupiter

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

I just don't see why they call you the accuser.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Not at all, my little legalistic friend. Let's see if you can catch the meaning of this post: the purpose of the words below is to besmirch CS Lewis. They became your words the second you accepted them as truth AND decided that Lewis was evil. These words became your words and you shared these words with the group. Why is this a big deal to you? You speak evil of many people -- its kinda your
M.O. You are THE authority on whose good and whose bad. Judy runs a close second -- and her witch-web hunt skills are fast approaching your level of expertise. You should be saying, "Thanks, JD, you finally get it. I am right -- that is why I share with you." jd -Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:23:05 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes againAdjusting your claims again? D"eegan puts him down as evil""The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil." ONE Problem, you can not get anything straight, they
were not MY WORDS http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement
that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a
state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). If the "Effect of C S Lewis' words are seen as EVIL what is that to me? See thou to it! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Spoken like a true legalist. The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil.
jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes againThat is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes againYour games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time. You are playing games THIRD REQUEST Show us where I called CSL "EVIL" Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted. Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth! This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense. Set up your
false allegations Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes againI put him "down" as "evil"? Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame
me. See to it yourself. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have no lasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does th

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

This is RLDS but it is a start  http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v1ch02.htm  p 11 until the twenty-first of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three,  p 15 After this third visit he again ascended up into heaven as before and I was again left to ponder on the strangeness of what I had just experienced, when almost immediately after the heavenly messenger had ascended from me the third time, the cock crew, and I found that day was approaching, so that our interviews must have occupied the whole of that night. I shortly after arose from my bed, and as usual went to the necessary labors of the day  p 16 "I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would until four years from that time; but he told me that I
 should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates. Accordingly as I had been commanded I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews respecting what the Lord was going to do and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days.   Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Would a scan of the relevant pages from your own books help?  HoC pp 11 & 16[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   Like the wise men of old who knew of the Messiah's birth, and where it was to happen, I study the stars, Kevin.    But as with anything considered occult, there are many who prey upon the ignorance of the masses, and teach corrupt crap that originates in their own evil imaginations.  Your author who was trying to deceive in order to down-grade a good and righteous servant of Jesus Christ (JS)  is one of these despicable persons.  You ought to be ashamed to even be reading his offal.             In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:40:32 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:WOW
 you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST?     What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep?     The Author is D M Quinn  He is a commited Mormon.   He is a Professor at BYU  from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism.   This thoroughly researched examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of
 protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text.   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:14:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the first Decan of Capricorn whose
 ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 1805.Blainerb:  Like most of what you quote, your author was apparently depending on the ignorance of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith.  Yes, Joseph was born on December 23, and that means the sun was in the first decan of Capricorn.  However, the ruling planet for Capricorn was never Jupiter--it is and always has been Saturn.  Jupiter is the ruler of one sign of the zodiac only and that is Sagittarius. Upon checking other signs for Joseph Smith, I see the moon was in the sign  Aquarius, also ruled by Saturn.  If Joseph had worn a Saturn talisman, your writer's comments might have some validity--as it is, it's obvious he's a liar who cares nothing for the truth. 
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings     I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?        In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)  Blainerb     In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
 I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging
 around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?       In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:   The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to
 life and the other to death.   judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)      
    
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge


I REST MY CASE   !!!  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:28:15 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge






PS  I forgot to brag-err, I mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter has been playing the piano for the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to play after graduating from the Academy, and he is teaching her to play.  But they can "play" the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy, can the 3 year old belt out "I've Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart" with drama! iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:01 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge
 



 

Why are you forcing   the obvious pretense of merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this DISCUSSION group. NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is obvious in the fair skin and blondness of hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain for those  western wonderers  (or is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??) and America's only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the implied meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields  (!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more on that latter.  

 

 

Merry Christmas  !!??  yeah right !!!.    

 

Hail perusal, or unusual or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  !  

 

KATHY, DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !!

jd

   

 

 

 

 

 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements














The homeschooler's gospel band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis. izzy






[Image removed] 






OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 


These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





Probably something in the water.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why 
did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal
beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to
God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great
idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  
  Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior
to the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
  Blainerb
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
  I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no
reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no
fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the
fall.  See Genesis 1:28.
Terry

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  
  Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you
as a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of
the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self
would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in
their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not
even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good
righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?  
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
The trees in the garden DaveH
are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and
full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat
from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly,
sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the
other to death.




judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again


Not at all, my little legalistic friend.   Let's see if you can catch the meaning of this post:   the purpose of the words below is to besmirch CS Lewis.   They became your words the second you accepted them as truth AND decided that Lewis was evil.   These words became your words and you shared these words with the group.   Why is this a big deal to you?   You speak evil of many people  --  its kinda your M.O.   You are THE authority on whose good and whose bad.   Judy runs a close second  --  and her  witch-web hunt  skills are fast approaching  your level of expertise.   You should be saying,  "Thanks, JD,  you finally get it.   I am right -- that is why I share with you."
 
jd -Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:23:05 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Adjusting your claims again?
D"eegan puts him down as evil""The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil."
 
ONE Problem, you can not get anything straight, they were not MY WORDS http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm


Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). 
 

If the "Effect of C S Lewis' words are seen as EVIL what is that to me?
See thou to it!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Spoken like a true legalist.  The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil.  
 
jd 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



That is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 
 Read your post and figure it out.   "Games"   is what you are all about,  Kevin.   The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is.   And don't talk to me about "third requests."  You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you.   Once again,  The gamemeister in you has the rule.  
 
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.   
 
You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.
 
Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil
 
I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again
 



Nor do you speak for my friends,  Christine.  Drive-by postings have no lasting influence.   It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing,  it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace.   Ridiculous and hypocritical.  Linda praises CSL,  deegan puts him

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge

I've seen that dog somewhere before too.      IZ STOLE Lassie!Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Please do not try to deceive us, IZ.  Shabby! Just shabby!!  We know rental kids when we see them.  Probably from rentakid.com or Family for a day.org. I've seen that dog somewhere before too.  Think it was a "Front line" ad.TerryShieldsFamily wrote:
 PS  I forgot to bragerr, I mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter has been playing the piano for the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to play after graduating from the Academy, and he is teaching her to play.  But they can play the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy, can the 3 year old belt out Ive Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart with drama! iz      
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:01 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge    Why are you forcing   the obvious pretense of merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this DISCUSSION group. NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is obvious in the fair skin and blondness of hairs, 
 yet you have nothing but disdain for those  western wonderers  (or is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??) and America's only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the implied meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields  (!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more on that
 latter.    Merry Christmas  !!??  yeah right !!!.     Hail perusal, or unusual or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  ! 
  KATHY, DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !! jd  
     -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements  The homeschooler's gospel band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis. izzy  [Image removed]   OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA   These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

Who would be so foolish to put them in that hell hole called the Government school? Don't you want them to learn to socialize with those GOV school kids? Just think what they can learn to emulate. FREE Public EDUCATION! promised by: Manifesto of the Communist Partyhttp://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html QUOTE: The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we
destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. 10. Free education for all children in public
schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I can only hope that my darling grandchildren will never blend in with those demonic creatures that attend the Government Schools. J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E Actually, my youngest daughter (22 years old) has told me why she has decided to NOT hoime school her children .. and it is for much of
the same reason as seen in the opening line below. She told me that each of the eight friends she had at Fresno Pacific U (who were all home schooled) had a very difficult time getting along with those in the school or "fitting in." My oldest daughter (38 years old) home schools up to junior high age for the same reason. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world. NONSENSEThat is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like a greenhouse.Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/ http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127The Next Generation of LeadershipThe most important people are the ones that history glosses over and such is the case with Home
Schooling families. The presence of kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than the general population.Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure their children aren't led astray by the dominant culture are getting extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious beliefs.The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the
leaders of the next century because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness, and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.And the nay sayers s

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org


Yes,  and are we saying that one must prove a negative  --  Terry showing evidence that animals do NOT have a soul is in not a logical procedure.  
 
jd -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:03:29 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E


Genesis 2:7  ...man became a living soul.  This is only said of men.  No where in the Bible will you find a reference to the soul of a horse or a monkey.  Animals were not made to have eternal lives any more than trees or vines.  They were created for man to use, to eat, to have dominion over.Terry===Dave Hansen wrote: 
monkeys and horses do not have a soul.DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry?  What Biblical evidence supports that theory?    Terry Clifton wrote: 
I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that monkeys and horses do not have a soul.==Dave Hansen wrote: 
He knew they would sin.  He did not plan for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will admit to being biased by my belief that He did plan for them to fall.As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would have transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of history would have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would proportionally be very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider anot
her example.  Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices many it seems.   Sowould you reasonably expect any but a few of A&E's descendants to withstand the temptations that Eve failed to avoid?    Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses or whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?Terry Clifton wrote: 
This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to accept.God is omnicient,  He knew they would sin.  He did not plan for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.=Dave Hansen wrote: 
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of 
humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him from do
ing it!  Don't you think that at some point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's children would have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who descended from A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?!    Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from before the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please let me know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see why your perspective perplexes me?  It doesn't seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about the way you understand it.
Judy wrote:I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would the Lord
want that for them/us?Terry Clifton wrote: 
God

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?


You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on their hearts" are two different things.   What exactly do you mean when you,  Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your heart?   Memorization or what?   What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same experience as those under the Mosaical Law.   Is it the Holy Spirit 's influence  -   but you make a difference between the two.   If this "law" has to do with various and multiple commandments,  how are they written on our hearts in a way different from the Old Law?   I honestly have no idea how you might answer this question.   I have no answer and that is why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law written on our hearts"  is talking about law as opposed to the rule of the Spirit.  
 
jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:46:30 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, nor did they have
God's Law written on their hearts.  They lived in a theocracy and Moses had to 
gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every
seven years.  jt
 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



  
How is this different from OT days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
 
jd
 
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?





 
How is this different from OT days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
 
jd
 
 
 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Why do we need scripture?  
Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith - 
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow 
During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
No wonder the professing church is so weak.  You would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
 
If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is so great about you and Judy.   First --  you two disagree on a number of points  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version doctrine, and the Inerrant Understanding didache,  you two also believe that you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of the personal judgments of God.  With those qualifications,  why do we even need the Bible?   We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher  --  I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that -  right?  But ignore these questions, as well.   Your peace of mind just migh
t be at stake.    
 
jd   -
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

Would a scan of the relevant pages from your own books help? HoC pp 11 & 16[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like the wise men of old who knew of the Messiah's birth, and where it was to happen, I study the stars, Kevin. But as with anything considered occult, there are many who prey upon the ignorance of the masses, and teach corrupt crap that originates in their own evil imaginations. Your author who was trying to deceive in order to down-grade a good and righteous servant of Jesus Christ (JS) is one of these despicable persons. You ought to be ashamed to even be reading his offal. In
a message dated 12/8/2005 5:40:32 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:WOW you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST? What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep? The Author is D M Quinn He is a commited Mormon. He is a Professor at BYU from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder Joseph
Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism. This thoroughly researched examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part of
Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:14:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the first Decan of Capricorn whose ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 1805.Blainerb: Like most of what you quote, your author was apparently depending on the ignorance of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith. Yes, Joseph was born on December 23, and that means the sun was in the first decan of Capricorn. However, the ruling planet for Capricorn was never Jupiter--it is and always has been Saturn. Jupiter is the ruler of one sign of the zodiac only and that is Sagittarius. Upon checking other signs for Joseph Smith, I see the moon
was in the sign Aquarius, also ruled by Saturn. If Joseph had worn a Saturn talisman, your writer's comments might have some validity--as it is, it's obvious he's a liar who cares nothing for the truth.

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, it was a good commandment!  
 But why  did they not have children until they were 1) changed into 
mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to 
  God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great 
  idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the 
Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
I 
  think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to 
  think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  
  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  
  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a 
daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the 
forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self 
would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging 
around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil 
and not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and 
goody-good righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really 
wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are the 
  two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and 
  full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to 
  eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - 
  is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One 
  leads to life and the other to death.
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox

Sidestep what issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox The March equinox typically falls on either March 20 or 21 and the September equinox on September 22 or 23 There is NO Question about joe using these Pagan Occult dates! HISTORY of the Church Vol 1 First visit of Nephi later changed to Moroni see page 9 History of the Church At retiring to bed on the night of Sept 21 the account continues till page 14 where we are told the visitation continued till
the rooster crowed, making it Sept 22! on Sept 22 'moroni' appears again tells joe come back every year at this time see page 16 Show me one LDS source that has complained about Quinns statement on Smith and his use of Occult dates for all important Mormon events. FARMS? Kerry Shirts? Shields? http://farms.byu.edu/results.php?st=1&q=magic And I would be real interested in your "feelings" on why Smith sacrificed a BLACK Sheep! http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/history/joseph_smith.htm He was directed to return to the site at each Autumn Equinox for four years, until 1827. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1820s_in_Mormonism 1823 September 21: Joseph Smith, Jr. claims to receive a visit from an angel in the upstairs room of the cabin in which he lived (note that this also occurred on the autumn equinox). The angel is originally named "Nephi," but the name is changed to "Moroni" to fall in line with the story told in the Book of Mormon. 1827 September 22: Joseph Smith, Jr. claims he acquired the Golden Plates on which The Book of Mormon is allegedly inscribed. September 22 holds special significance in pagan circles as it is the autumn equinox. According to some authors (Quinn 1987), Joseph Smith, Jr. retrieving the golden plates on the autumn equinox is not a coincidence but rather consciously timed to coincide with this important pagan day. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Is that what you think I said? You are joking. Or you are as usual
trying to sidestep the issue; I am therefore assuming you have no answer to defend the hoax your were quoting. Blainerb: In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:53:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:So there was NO Autumn Equinox in 1824? 1825? 1826? 1827? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: Not only was your author wrong as to the ruler of Capricorn, he implies that the autumn equinox falls on the 22 of September every year of the four years
Joseph Smith went to the hill to meet with the angel. This could not have been true, as the autumn equinox changes days according to several factors, mostly having to do with whether or not the year is a leap year. See table below for an example of this-- notice the time of day varies as well as the day.Your author is nothing more than a cheap put-down artist bent on making Joseph Smith the true prophet look bad.

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org



Dave, are you nwext going to tell us that monkeys and hoses are your spirit 
brothers, too? For that matter, what biblical evidence supports ANY of your 
LDS theories?



From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:57:53 -0800

*monkeys and horses do not have a soul.*

DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry?  What 
Biblical evidence supports that theory?




Terry Clifton wrote:

I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that *monkeys and horses 
do not have a soul.*

==

Dave Hansen wrote:

*He knew they would sin.  **He did not plan for them to fall.  He planned 
a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*


DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will admit 
to being biased by my belief that *He did plan for them to fall*.


/*As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is 
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/


DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe to 
speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would have 
transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to transgress. 
 Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of history would 
have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would proportionally be 
very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider another example.  
Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid smoking, alcohol, sex 
and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices many it seems.   Sowould 
you reasonably expect any but a few of A&E's descendants to withstand the 
temptations that Eve failed to avoid?


Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses or 
whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden fruit 
have had IFF A&E hadn't?


Terry Clifton wrote:



This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have 
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to 
accept.
God is omnicient,  *He knew they would sin.*  *He did not plan for them 
to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.*
/*As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is 
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.*/

=


Dave Hansen wrote:



*He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?*

*if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the 
human lot since then.*



DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one 
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my 
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me 
in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden 
fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live 
forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than 
religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being 
intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.


I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me 
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not transgressed, 
do you think none of their descendants would have transgressed?  In my 
experience, the best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him 
from doing it!  Don't you think that at some point---probably much 
sooner than later---one of A&E's children would have fallen?  Or do you 
believe that of the billions who descended from A&E, none would ever 
have transgressed?  Just what are the chances of that 
happening.zilch?!?!?!


Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the 
world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it 
expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that as 
well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from 
before the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please let me 
know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently don't believe 
that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see why your perspective 
perplexes me?  It doesn't seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm 
missing something about the way you understand it.




Judy wrote:

I think they did nto have to transgress and *if they had not they would 
have saved themselves and the rest of*
*humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the 
human lot since then.*  Why would the Lord

want that for them/us?


Terry Clifton wrote:

God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, 
no matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many 
times I am given that option.  God will give you the option, but it is 
not His desire. I think

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, complain to God.  He
ordered it, not me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of
the easiest commands to keep. ;-)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to
the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
  Blainerb
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no
reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no
fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the
fall.  See Genesis 1:28.
Terry

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  
  
  
  Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a
daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the
forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even
 be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect
little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring. 
But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that
what you think the Lord really wanted?  
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
The trees in the garden DaveH are
the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and
full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat
from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly,
sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the
other to death.




judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge





Please do not try to deceive us, IZ.  Shabby! Just shabby!!  We know
rental kids when we see them.  Probably from rentakid.com or Family for
a day.org. I've seen that dog somewhere before too.  Think it was a
"Front line" ad.
Terry


ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  PS  I forgot
to brag—err, I
mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter has been playing the
piano for
the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to play after graduating from
the
Academy, and he is teaching her to play.  But they can “play”
the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy, can the 3 year old belt
out “I’ve
Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart” with drama! iz
   
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday,
December 08, 2005
3:01 PM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] A tribute
to Perusal knowledge
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  Why are you forcing  
the obvious pretense of
merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this
DISCUSSION group.
NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion
group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is
obvious in the fair skin and blondness
of hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain
for those  western wonderers  (or
is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??)
and America's
only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a
note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely
disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the
implied
meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields
family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields 
(!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more
on that latter.  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  Merry Christmas  !!?? 
yeah right
!!!.    
  
  
   
  
  
  Hail perusal, or unusual
or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  !  
  
  
   
  
  
  KATHY
  ,
DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !!
  
  
  jd
  
  
     
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop
Elements
  
  
  

  


  

  
  

  


The homeschooler's
gospel band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis.
izzy


  

  
  
  
  
  

  





  
  

[Image
removed] 
 

  

  
  
  OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 
  
  

  




  

  
  
  These
photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R)
Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox





 
Blainerb:  Sounds more like some of Joseph 
Smith's tom-foolery!  He was famous for saying ridiculous things for a 
laugh!  Once while the Nauvoo temple was being built, and the sunstone with 
the round-faced image of God  carved on it was about to be put into place, 
someone asked if that was what God looked like.  He replied that it was, 
except his nose was just a smidgeon wider!  Both he and the man who asked 
the question got a good laugh!  Where is your sense of humor, Kevin?  

 
In a message dated 12/7/2005 9:14:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe was an Occultist who sacrificed 
  animalsKevin Deegan 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
  
The angel 
appeared on September 22 every year four years in a row.  None of the 
other dates corresponded to Trumpets.
 
It had more to do with being a observer of SIGNS in the 
heavens. Jo was an Astrologer who did all his "work" on days of Occult and 
Astrologic significance
Pagans observe the "holy day" of the Autumn Equinox on the date 
in 1827 also.  The "angel" of light had appeared on the night 
of the Autumnal equinox, between midnight and dawn--hours auspicious 
for a magical invocation
 
In what follows most Mormons will not find a story with which they are 
familiar. Instead, they will discover that Joseph Smith 
evidently participated extensively in magical 
pursuits and that he shared with others of his contemporaries a 
magic world view of the world. For myself, I have found that the 'official 
version' of early Mormon history is sometimes incomplete in its presentation 
and evaluation of evidence, and therefore inaccurate in certain respects." 
(Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Introduction, Quinn 
pages xx-xxi)

In discussing the discovery of the Book of Mormon, 
Quinn notes that Smith prayed to be 
guided to the plates for three years in succession on the autumnal equinox. On September 
21, 1823, for example, Smith prayed under the full moon on a Sunday night that was ruled by his 
own ruling planet, Jupiter. 
The hours of his prayer and vision were ruled by planets and the 
moon, making the time particularly propitious for the summoning of and 
communing with a good spirit. (Smith also owned a talisman which had the magic seal of 
Jupiter and the Latin words "Confirmo O Deus potentissimus" on one side, and 
the astrological symbol for Jupiter, Jupiter's magic number (136), and a 
magic table in Hebrew lettering that added up to 136 on the other side.) 
Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View D. MICHAEL QUINN http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/magic.htm
 
Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 
1805 during the first Decan of Capricorn whose ruling planet 
is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 
1805.
Dr. Durham director of the LDS Institute of 
Religion at the University of Utah as well as president of the Mormon 
History Association "...The purpose of the Table of Jupiter is 
talismanic magic [sic] was to be able to call upon 
the celestial intelligences assigned to the particular talisman to 
assist one in all endeavors. The names of the deities... 
who could be invoked by the Table were always written on the tailsman or 
represented by various numbers; three such names were written on Joseph 
Smith's talisman... Abbah, Father; El Ab, Father is God; and Josiphiel, 
Johovah speaks for God... When properly invoked, with 
Jupiter being very powerful and ruling in the heavens, these 
intelligences by the power of ancient magic guaranteed to the 
possessor of this tailsman to gain of riches and favor and power 
and love and peace and to confirm honors and dignities and councils. 
Tailsmanic magic further declared that any one who worked 
skillfully with this Jupiter table would obtain the power of stimulating 
anyone to offer their love to the possessor of the 
talisman..."
 
Dabbling in the occult, Smith 
apprenticed with a man described as "a peripatetic magician, conjurer and 
fortuneteller," from whom he learned the era's folk concepts of 
crystal gazing, divining rods, seer stones, and 
rituals associated with treasure hunting. He advised others in 
their pursuits, once instructing a neighbor he could locate buried money on 
his property by slitting the throat of a black 
sheep and leading it in a circle on the 
land. Increasingly ridiculed as a necromancer and money 
digger, Smith kept details of his continuing revelations to 
himself, confiding only in his parents, siblings, and, by early 1827, in 
young Emma Hale, with whom he had eloped. All the while he patiently awaited 
an order from the angel Moroni that it was time to retrieve the golden 
book.
It was an auspicious night for

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here     You assume that Adam & Eve would not have children, UNLESS they SINNED, because your IDEOLOGY says so.     But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?      LOL No as you have wonderfully pointed out for us all, the LDS 'god' prefers liars, fornicators, decievers, and any number of sinful traits![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?       In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:   The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.   judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
 Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge









PS  I forgot to brag—err, I
mean mention, that my 7 year old granddaughter has been playing the piano for
the past year.  Son Todd taught himself to play after graduating from the
Academy, and he is teaching her to play.  But they can “play”
the daylights out of any instrument! And, boy, can the 3 year old belt out “I’ve
Got Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart” with drama! iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
3:01 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute
to Perusal knowledge



 







 





Why are you forcing   the obvious pretense of
merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this DISCUSSION group.
NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion
group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is
obvious in the fair skin and blondness
of hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain
for those  western wonderers  (or
is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??)
and America's
only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a
note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely
disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the implied
meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields
family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields 
(!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more
on that latter.  





 





 





Merry Christmas  !!??  yeah right
!!!.    





 





Hail perusal, or unusual
or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  !  





 





KATHY,
DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !!





jd





   





 





 





 





 





 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop
Elements






 
  
  
   


 
  
  
  The homeschooler's gospel
  band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis.
  izzy
  
  
 





   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  [Image removed] 
  
  
   


OLYMPUS
DIGITAL CAMERA 


   
  
  
  
  
 




These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R)
Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org









I can only hope that my darling grandchildren
will never blend in with those demonic creatures that attend the Government
Schools. J  iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
3:24 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-A&E



 







 





 





Actually, my youngest daughter  (22 years old) has
told me why she has decided to NOT hoime school her children  
..    and it is   for much of the same
reason as seen in the opening line below.   She told me
that each     of the eight friends she had at Fresno
Pacific U (who were all home schooled) had a very difficult time 
getting along with those in the school or "fitting in."  





 





My oldest daughter  (38 years old)  home schools
up to junior high age for the same reason.  





 





jd 





 





 





 



 
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E





While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who
overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the
ills of the world.  





 





NONSENSE





That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE
flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely
susceptible to it! 
Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like
a greenhouse.





Allowing access to your children to those things that
would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy





 





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/





 





http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127





The Next Generation of Leadership
The most important people are the ones that history
glosses over and such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of
kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more
and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on
homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers
18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes
up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more likely than
their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken
college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who
were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their
community's politics than the general population.

Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure
their children aren't led astray by the dominant culture are getting
extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious
beliefs.

The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century
because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but
am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as
a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an
adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of
homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness,
and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.





And the nay
sayers said "O NO how are they going to learn to Socialize?"





Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:







DaveH writes: 





   FWIW.While it may be noble to want to
keep one's children pure and innocent,
a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids
acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  





 





Not necessarily;
being over protective through fear is one thing.  Teaching children
spiritual discernment in the fear of God is another because then the parent has
His power and watchful eye on their side.





 





I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You
could raise your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free
life.  But once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable
to catching a slew of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid
be exposed to such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages
in the strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack
later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable? 





 





This is what the
wisdom of the world teaches.  But we are fearfully and wonderfully made
and God has given us an immune system which should be able to throw off
anything that comes our way when not compromised by sin.





 





 I see that somewhat as an analogy to the tree
knowledge of good and evil.  I hope that makes a little sense,
Terry.  (Though I'm sure some TTers will take exception.)  FTRI
don't think that is the sole reason for the
tree though.





 





The trees
in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is
"p

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the 
Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   :>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think 
  you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think 
  that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The 
  command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See 
  Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a 
daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the 
forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self 
would  even  be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging 
around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and 
not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good 
righteous.  Is that what you think the Lord really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are the two 
  kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of 
  good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat 
  from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is 
  earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to 
  life and the other to death.
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

Adjusting your claims again? D"eegan puts him down as evil""The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil." ONE Problem, you can not get anything straight, they were not MY WORDS http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm
Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to
Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in
the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). If the "Effect of C S Lewis' words are seen as EVIL what is that to me? See thou to it! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Spoken like a true legalist. The effect of
your words was to pitch Lewis as evil. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes againThat is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule.
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes againYour games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time. You are playing games THIRD REQUEST Show us where I called CSL "EVIL" Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted. Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth! This is the only way
you are capable of mounting a defense. Set up your false allegations Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes againI put him "down" as "evil"? Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me. See to it yourself.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have no lasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol. jd -Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes
sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance. You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a

RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge









You caught me, jd. 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
3:01 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute
to Perusal knowledge



 







 





Why are you forcing   the obvious pretense of
merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this DISCUSSION group.
NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion
group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is
obvious in the fair skin and blondness
of hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain
for those  western wonderers  (or
is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??)
and America's
only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a
note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely
disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to see the implied
meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields
family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields 
(!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more
on that latter.  





 





 





Merry Christmas  !!??  yeah right
!!!.    





 





Hail perusal, or unusual
or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  !  





 





KATHY,
DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !!





jd





   





 





 





 





 





 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop
Elements






 
  
  
   


 
  
  
  The homeschooler's gospel
  band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis.
  izzy
  
  
 





   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  [Image removed] 
  
  
   


OLYMPUS
DIGITAL CAMERA 


   
  
  
  
  
 




These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R)
Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org









Spoken like a true trader in slave
rabbits! iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
8:03 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--A&E



 

Genesis 2:7  ...man
became a living soul.  This is only said of men.  No where
in the Bible will you find a reference to the soul of a horse or a
monkey.  Animals were not made to have eternal lives any more than trees
or vines.  They were created for man to use, to eat, to have dominion
over.
Terry
===


Dave Hansen wrote: 

monkeys and horses do not have a
soul.

DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry? 
What Biblical evidence supports that theory?

    

Terry Clifton wrote: 

I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that monkeys and horses do not have a soul.
==

Dave Hansen wrote: 

He knew they would sin.  He did
not plan for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big
difference.

DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I
will admit to being biased by my belief that He
did plan for them to fall.

As to their descendants
missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is speculate, and speculation
often leads to error.

DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe
to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would have
transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to
transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of
history would have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would
proportionally be very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider
another example.  Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid
smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices
many it seems.   Sowould you reasonably expect any but a few of A&E's
descendants to withstand the temptations that Eve failed to avoid?

    Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys,
horses or whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden
fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?

Terry Clifton wrote: 


This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been
taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to accept.
God is omnicient,  He knew they would
sin.  He did not plan for
them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.
As to their descendents
missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is speculate, and speculation
often leads to error.
=


Dave Hansen wrote: 


He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for
everyone?

if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of




humanity all of the
heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.





DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in
which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden fruit. 
He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live forever without
experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than religious later on
in life, his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now you folks
have sparked that fire again.

    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut
let me say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have
transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at some
point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's children would have
fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who descended from
A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what are the chances of
that happening.zilch?!?!?!

    Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in
the world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it
expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that
as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from before
the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please let me know if you
do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently don't believe that God wanted it
to happen that way.  Do you see why your perspective perplexes me? 
It doesn't seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something
about the way you understand it.






Judy wrote:

I think they did nto have to transgress and if
they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of





humanity all of the
heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would the Lord





want that for them/us?





Terry Clifton wrote: 

Go

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





Genesis 2:7  ...man became a living soul.  This is only said of
men.  No where in the Bible will you find a reference to the soul of a
horse or a monkey.  Animals were not made to have eternal lives any
more than trees or vines.  They were created for man to use, to eat, to
have dominion over.
Terry
===


Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  monkeys and horses
do not have a soul.
  
DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry? 
What Biblical evidence supports that theory?
  
    
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  


I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that monkeys and
horses
do not have a soul.
==

Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  He knew they would sin.  He did not plan
for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.
  
DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will
admit to being biased by my belief that He did plan
for them to fall.
  
  As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All
we
can
do is
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.
  
DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe
to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would
have transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to
transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of
history would have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would
proportionally be very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider
another example.  Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid
smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices many
it seems.   Sowould you reasonably expect any but a few of
A&E's descendants to withstand the temptations that Eve failed to
avoid?
  
    Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses or
whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden
fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  



This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to
accept.
God is omnicient,  He knew they would sin.  He did not plan
for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.
As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All
we
can do is
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.
=


Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  
  He wanted Adam and Eve to
ruin it for everyone?
  
  if they had not they would have
saved
themselves and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache,
suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.
  
  
DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me
in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden
fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live
forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than
religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being
intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.
  
    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have
transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at
some point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's
children would have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who
descended from A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what
are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?!
  
    Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the
world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it
expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that as
well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from
before the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please let me
know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently don't believe
that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see why your perspective
perplexes me?  It doesn't seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm
missing something about the way you understand it.
  
  
  
  Judy wrote:
  
I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they
would have saved themselves and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache,
suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would the
Lord
  want that for them/us?

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

2005-12-08 Thread Judy Taylor




In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling 
them, nor did they have
God's Law written on their hearts.  They lived in 
a theocracy and Moses had to 
gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every
seven years.  jt
 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
    
  How is this different from OT days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
    -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 
  11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
  

  
  
  
   
  How is this different from OT days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
   
   
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
  

  
  Why do we need scripture?  
  Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given 
  the measure of faith - 
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
  But let's look at our example, the Head of the 
  Church, the one we are to follow 
  During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this 
  too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
  When confronted by the adversary - What was His 
  defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
  No wonder the professing church is so weak.  You 
  would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
   
  If anyone speaks not according to 
  THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 
  8:20)
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


  
  
  You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is so 
  great about you and Judy.   First --  
  you two disagree on a number of points  
  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for 
  time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version 
  doctrine, and the Inerrant 
  Understanding didache,  you two also believe that you can 
  condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of 
  the personal judgments of God.  With those qualifications,  
  why do we even need the Bible?   We 
  certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher  --  I mean 
  the Holy Spirit will take care of all that -  right?  But ignore 
  these questions, as well.   
  Your peace of mind just might be at stake.    
   
  jd  
   -
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  There is no reason to
think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall. 
The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See
Genesis 1:28.
Terry

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a
daughter of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the
forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful  self would  even
 be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect
little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring. 
But they would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that
what you think the Lord really wanted?  
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the
two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of
good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from. 
The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly,
sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the
other to death.




judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm





 
Like the wise men of old who knew of the Messiah's birth, and where it was 
to happen, I study the stars, Kevin.    But as with anything 
considered occult, there are many who prey upon the ignorance of the masses, and 
teach corrupt crap that originates in their own evil imaginations.  
Your author who was trying to deceive in order to down-grade a good and 
righteous servant of Jesus Christ (JS)  is one of these despicable 
persons.  You ought to be ashamed to even be reading his offal.  

 
 
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:40:32 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  WOW you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST?
   
  What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep?
   
  The Author is D M Quinn
  He is a commited Mormon. 
  He is a Professor at BYU
  from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully 
  reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in 
  nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder 
  Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited 
  by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He 
  explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding 
  how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that 
  differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a 
  much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism. 
  
  This thoroughly researched 
  examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other 
  founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part 
  of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to 
  determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of 
  skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to 
  discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text. 
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:14:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the first Decan of 
  Capricorn whose ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also 
  the governing planet for the year 1805.

Blainerb:  Like most of 
what you quote, your author was apparently depending on the ignorance 
of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith.  Yes, Joseph was born 
on December 23, and that means the sun was in the first decan of 
Capricorn.  However, the ruling planet for Capricorn was never 
Jupiter--it is and always has been Saturn.  
Jupiter is the ruler of one sign of the zodiac 
only and that is Sagittarius. Upon checking other signs for Joseph Smith, I 
see the moon was in the sign  Aquarius, also ruled by Saturn.  If 
Joseph had worn a Saturn talisman, your writer's comments might have some 
validity--as it is, it's obvious he's a liar who cares nothing for the 
truth.

Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox





Is that what you think I said?  You are joking.  Or you are as 
usual trying to sidestep the issue; I am therefore assuming you have no answer 
to defend the hoax your were quoting.   
Blainerb:  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:53:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So there was NO Autumn Equinox in 1824? 1825? 1826? 1827?
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Blainerb:  Not only was your 
author wrong as to the ruler of Capricorn, he implies that the autumn 
equinox falls on the 22 of September every year of the four years Joseph 
Smith went to the hill to meet with the angel.  This could not have 
been true, as the autumn equinox changes days according to several factors, 
mostly having to do with whether or not the year is a leap year.  
See table below for an example of this-- notice the time of day varies as 
well as the day.Your author is nothing 
more than a cheap put-down artist  bent on making Joseph Smith the true 
prophet look 
bad.

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?


 
How is this different from OT days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
 
jd
 
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?





 
How is this different from OT days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
 
jd
 
 
 
 -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Why do we need scripture?  
Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith - 
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow 
During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
No wonder the professing church is so weak.  You would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
 
If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 





You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is so great about you and Judy.   First --  you two disagree on a number of points  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version doctrine, and the Inerrant Understanding didache,  you two also believe that you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of the personal judgments of God.  With those qualifications,  why do we even need the Bible?   We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher  --  I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that -  right?  But ignore these questions, as well.   Your peace of mind just might be at stake.    
 
jd   -

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org





Blainerb:  You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter 
of God are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, 
none of us including your wonderful  self would  even  be 
here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little 
paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring.  But they 
would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous.  Is that what you think 
the Lord really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds 
  of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" 
  and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree 
  - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  
  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to 
  death.
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] The Triune God, Holy Scripture & Interpretation - Why diverse...


 
 
This is a great comment:   I think you may not expect more than you are willing to receive,
 
 
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:51:34 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Triune God, Holy Scripture & Interpretation - Why diverse...



 
Blainerb:  These are great questions, Lance, I don't usually bother, but I even took time to look up some of your words in my dictionary to be sure I understood them. :>)  See my comments in blue below:
 
In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:16:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Are we promised any more than 'enough' understanding to facilitate salvation?
I think you may not expect more than you are willing to receive, Lance.   Joseph Smith was not allowed to open the sealed portion of the golden plates, due to the pride and unbelief  that was projected among the Gentile population.  Even the parts he did translate are usually rejected by those who pretend to be teachers of the gospel.  

 
Does 'study' matter when it comes to Scripture?  What's entailed in this 'study'?
 
Study is productive, assuming the Holy Spirit is taken as one's guide.  Without it, study results in  "ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

 
What is the role of the Holy Spirit in apprehending the 'gospel', the act of exegesis, the act of exposition (either spoken or written), office/sign gifts?
 
I'd say it is critical.  See the parable of the Ten Virgins.  Those who took the Holy Spirit for their guides were prepared to enter into the covenant relationship as the "Bride" to the Bridegroom.  Those who were not prepared by the Spirit were not spiritually prepared for the marriage.  

 
Is there even the possibility of  the entire believing community, globally, coming to a unitary understanding of the entire corpus of Scripture?
 
Ideally, there is no reason why not.  But practically speaking, I see little or no hope.  Human pride is the reason it will never happen.  Every man does his own thing, becomes egoistically married to his position, and that leads to strife, wherein the devil may then play his games amongst  us.  

 
Do even the most mature (godly/holy/sanctified) believers possess only a partial/limited understanding of the Holy Scriptures?
  If we put our foot down against new truth when it is introduced, we can hardly claim to be Godly/ Holy/Sanctified, despite your most carefully constructed facade of being otherwise.  We can, of course, always resort to being sanctimonious, as did the Jews who prayed in public to be heard of men, etc.   :>) 
 
Do all believers err, at some points, in their understanding and therefore, teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Does this necessarily represent sin? When as a believer something of your teaching is errant relative to ontological truth and, you discover this to be so then, what steps ought you to take to rectify the matter vis a vis those who received this teaching?
 
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, but I refer you to  76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 5-10--I hope this might be something of an answer for you: 
 
5   "For thus saith the Lord--I the Lord am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those  who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6    "Great shall be their reward, and eternal shall be their glory.
7    "And to them will I reveal all mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.
8 "Yea, and even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.
9 "And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven, and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.
10 "For by my spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man."
 

 
Just musing..

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again


 
Spoken like a true legalist.  The effect of your words was to pitch Lewis as evil.  
 
jd 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



That is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



 
 Read your post and figure it out.   "Games"   is what you are all about,  Kevin.   The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is.   And don't talk to me about "third requests."  You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you.   Once again,  The gamemeister in you has the rule.  
 
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.   
 
You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.
 
Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil
 
I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again
 



Nor do you speak for my friends,  Christine.  Drive-by postings have no lasting influence.   It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing,  it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace.   Ridiculous and hypocritical.  Linda praises CSL,  deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me  !!   lol.

 

jd 
-Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again


JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down.   You have allies on this forum but no real brethren  (except -  possibly, Dean).   I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.   

The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you  --  not to Lance.   You have not spoken honestly about Barth.   I suspect this is a habit of yours  --  speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.   C.S.L included.   

 

 

jd

 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up



Lance likes him because he is so Catholic

The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'

 

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).

 

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm

Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolut

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?





In a message dated 12/7/2005 9:15:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  

  
  IMAGINE 
  Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN 
  Heaven
  Some say it's easy if you try.
   

Ha Ha!!
 
Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] The Triune God, Holy Scripture & Interpretation - Why diverse...




 
Blainerb:  These are great questions, Lance, I 
don't usually bother, but I even took time to look up some of your words in my 
dictionary to be sure I understood them. :>)  See my comments in blue 
below:
 
In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:16:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Are we promised any more than 'enough' 
  understanding to facilitate salvation?
I think you may not expect more than you are willing to 
receive, Lance.   Joseph Smith was not allowed to open the sealed 
portion of the golden plates, due to the pride and unbelief  that was 
projected among the Gentile population.  Even the parts he did translate 
are usually rejected by those who pretend to be teachers of the 
gospel.  

   
  Does 'study' matter when it comes to 
  Scripture?  What's entailed in this 
'study'?
 
Study is productive, assuming the Holy Spirit is taken 
as one's guide.  Without it, study results in  "ever learning, 
but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

   
  What is the role of the Holy Spirit 
  in apprehending the 'gospel', the act of exegesis, the act of exposition 
  (either spoken or written), office/sign gifts?
 
I'd say it is critical.  See the parable of the 
Ten Virgins.  Those who took the Holy Spirit for their guides were prepared 
to enter into the covenant relationship as the "Bride" to the Bridegroom.  
Those who were not prepared by the Spirit were not spiritually prepared for the 
marriage.  

   
  Is there even the possibility of  the entire 
  believing community, globally, coming to a unitary understanding of the entire 
  corpus of Scripture?
 
Ideally, there is no reason why not.  But 
practically speaking, I see little or no hope.  Human pride is the reason 
it will never happen.  Every man does his own thing, becomes egoistically 
married to his position, and that leads to strife, wherein the devil may then 
play his games amongst  us.  

   
  Do even the most mature (godly/holy/sanctified) 
  believers possess only a partial/limited understanding of the Holy 
  Scriptures?
  If we put our foot 
down against new truth when it is introduced, we can hardly claim to 
be Godly/ Holy/Sanctified, despite your most carefully constructed facade 
of being otherwise.  We can, of course, always resort to being 
sanctimonious, as did the Jews who prayed in public to be heard of men, 
etc.   :>) 
 
Do all believers err, at some points, in their 
understanding and therefore, teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Does this 
necessarily represent sin? When as a believer something of your teaching is 
errant relative to ontological truth and, you discover this to be so then, what 
steps ought you to take to rectify the matter vis a vis those who received this 
teaching?
 
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, but I refer you 
to  76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 5-10--I hope this 
might be something of an answer for you: 
 
5   "For thus saith the Lord--I the Lord am merciful and 
gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those  who 
serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6    "Great shall be their reward, and 
eternal shall be their glory.
7    "And to them will I reveal all 
mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make 
known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to 
my kingdom.
8 "Yea, and even the wonders of 
eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things 
of many generations.
9 "And their wisdom shall be 
great, and their understanding reach to heaven, and before them the wisdom of 
the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to 
naught.
10 "For by my spirit will I 
enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my 
will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet 
entered into the heart of man."
 

   
  Just 
musing..

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

As usual you ignore the issues and deal with personalities.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  "Help me see  ..."   says the blind man  !!!  ???      -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:53:30 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?  Help me see MY ACTION below?     IMAGINE   Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven  Some say it's easy if you try.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   I am addressing your
 actions  not your "caracter."      -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?Again you choose to personalize?  Are you attacking my caracter?     Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
 TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:40:57 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?IMAGINE   Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven  Some say it's easy if you try.   Yahoo! ShoppingFind
 Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping   Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

That is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] There he goes againYour games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the
same time. You are playing games THIRD REQUEST Show us where I called CSL "EVIL" Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted. Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth! This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense. Set up your false allegations Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time. -Original
Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes againI put him "down" as "evil"? Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me. See to it yourself. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have no lasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol. jd -Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except -
possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance. You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs. C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs upLance likes him because he is so CatholicThe mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided
what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htmLewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A
Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed
the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

Dean put away the NASVLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I rarely attempt to change the minds of those I deem unchangeable. No 'drive-by' here, Linda. Please illustrate, sans archives, any who have changed their mind on any issue whatsoever on TT? A substantive issue would be best but, I'll settle for somethin' teeny. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 08, 2005 08:43 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family... Lance, if you have any substantive evidence in favor of Feminism for Believers please let us know. Meanwhile please cut the personality analyses. iz PS Im the one who accused you of drive-by shooting posts. Youve done it again. All put-downs; no evidence. Hollow bullets. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance
MuirSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:31 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family... Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God? Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's observations. Amen Linda! David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society thingy). MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD! There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and
sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of course)

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

OOPS I hit the DELETE keyLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin please, what was this IDIOT, JEW comment you posted?- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 08, 2005
08:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...It is not that He can not do. It is that he will not do. God does not speak thru profane persons such as Cain & Esau. In fact he calls them names as in "PROFANE" Though he cried Esau was REJECTED! details in the HOLY BIBLE Nobody is railing against the grace of God. God offered his grace it was rejected, just like He has offered truth. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God? Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's observations.. Amen Linda! David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the
society thingy). MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD! There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of course) Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org


 
 
Actually, my youngest daughter  (22 years old) has told me why she has decided to NOT hoime school her children   ..    and it is   for much of the same reason as seen in the opening line below.   She told me that each     of the eight friends she had at Fresno Pacific U (who were all home schooled) had a very difficult time  getting along with those in the school or "fitting in."  
 
My oldest daughter  (38 years old)  home schools up to junior high age for the same reason.  
 
jd 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E



While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  
 
NONSENSE
That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like a greenhouse.
Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/
 
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127
The Next Generation of LeadershipThe most important people are the ones that history glosses over and such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than the general population.Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure their children aren't led astray by the dominant
 culture are getting extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious beliefs.The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness, and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.
And the nay sayers said "O NO how are they going to learn to Socialize?"
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DaveH writes: 
   FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  
 
Not necessarily; being over protective through fear is one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment in the fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and watchful eye on their side.
 
I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable? 
 
This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.  But we are fearfully and wonderfully made and God has given us an immune system which should be able to throw off anything that comes our way when not compromised by sin.
 
 I see that somewhat as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good and evil.  I hope that makes a little sense, Terry.  (Though I'm sure some TTers will take exception.)  FTRI don't think that is the sole reason for the tree though.
 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.
 judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)



Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???


 :-)
   -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:19:45 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???






Look, Mr. Nastyman, I only said it "seemed revolting to me, so I didn't read it."  OKAY  Is there some requirement in my life that I should have read a book that you thought was worthwhile or what??? Criticize all you want.  You are quite practiced at it.  At least you aren't alone.  The Slicer-Dicer continuesiz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:59 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???
 



When you take time to mention that you found the book "revolting,"  I assume you have read the thing.   My criticism still stands.    I did a perusal of the book when I first opened.  That first glance gave me a very different view of the book than when I actually read itvery different.   But since your perusal is apparently as thorough as my reading,  how could you possibly be wrong.  

 

jd

 

 

 

 

 
 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:57:52 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???





JD, when I tried to respond to your email it crashed my computer.  So I?m reposting on a different email from what you sent me.  Our computers definitely have bad blood for each other!

 

So according to your theory, if I peruse a book and find it to be unappealing or uninteresting then I MUST read it, just to be sure!  When, then, do I get to read the books I WANT to read jd I don?t have eternity in this life! iz

 

 

 

 Linda,  if you posted to me under this heading, a few minutes agp,   I can't open it.   It has that little paper clip thing.    

 

jd

 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 

 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book "revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said nothing that argues this point.  

 

jd

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge


 
Why are you forcing   the obvious pretense of merriment upon the rest of us who are eqully members of this DISCUSSION group. NOT a picture party or a pity party but a  discussion group  ???    !!    The Mormon look is obvious in the fair skin and blondness of hairs,  yet you have nothing but disdain for those  western wonderers  (or is it "wanderers"?  does it really make a difference ??) and America's only world religion.   Heck,,  I bet not one child can play a note of music, yet such is the message of this photo.   Completely disgusting  --   and I need nothing more than a casual perusal to 
see the implied meaning and requisite hidden agenda of the Shields family.    You have been FOUND OUT, Linda Shields  (!!)  or is that your real name    !!   But more on that latter.  
 
 
Merry Christmas  !!??  yeah right !!!.    
 
Hail perusal, or unusual or per usual or whatever the correct wording might be  !  
 
KATHY, DEAR,  WHERE IS MY TOMATO JUICE  ???  !!
jd
   
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:12:11 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] You have received photos from Adobe Photoshop Elements


















The homeschooler's gospel band plays for us on their last visit to St. Louis. izzy




[Image removed] 





OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 

These photos were sent from Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 3.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin

RE: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???









Look, Mr. Nastyman, I only said it “seemed
revolting to me, so I didn’t read it.”  OKAY  Is
there some requirement in my life that I should have read a book that you
thought was worthwhile or what??? Criticize all you
want.  You are quite practiced at it.  At least you aren’t
alone.  The Slicer-Dicer continuesiz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
1:59 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] books we
MUST read???



 







When you take time to mention that you found the book
"revolting,"  I assume you have read the thing.   My
criticism still stands.    I did a perusal of the book when I
first opened.  That first glance gave me a very different view of the
book than when I actually read itvery different.   But since
your perusal is apparently as thorough as my reading,  how could you
possibly be wrong.  





 





jd





 





 





 





 





 



 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:57:52 -0600
Subject: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???













JD, when I tried to respond to your email it
crashed my computer.  So I?m reposting on a different email from what you
sent me.  Our computers definitely have bad blood for each other!





 





So according to your theory, if I peruse a
book and find it to be unappealing or uninteresting then I MUST read it, just
to be sure!  When, then, do I get to read the books I WANT to read jd I don?t have eternity in this
life! iz





 





 





 





 Linda,  if you posted to me under this
heading, a few minutes agp,
  I can't open it.   It has that little paper clip
thing.    





 





jd





 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 





 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book
"revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had
you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said
nothing that argues this point.  





 





jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

 
 
"Help me see  ..."   says the blind man  !!!  ???    
 
 
 
 -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:53:30 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?




Help me see MY ACTION below?
 
IMAGINE 
Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven
Some say it's easy if you try.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 
I am addressing your actions  not your "caracter." 
 
 -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Again you choose to personalize?
Are you attacking my caracter?
 
Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:40:57 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



IMAGINE 
Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven
Some say it's easy if you try.
 



Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 


Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?


If you cannot answer your own question by reading my post in context of the related thread,  then I have no idea why you are here, on a DISCUSSION group where reading with understanding is, of course, a requirement --  albeit not a requisite one     
 
jd  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:56:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?



I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave the way - which is to
start with themselves.  My response is not an excuse for anything - what am I excused from??
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 
 yet another excuse to not answer questions.   You and Kevin have this down to an art form !!
 
 
 
 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





OK - You go first
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which they say is not embodied truth? J
ust say so so that we may factor that in when reading you.
  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)

Re: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???


When you take time to mention that you found the book "revolting,"  I assume you have read the thing.   My criticism still stands.    I did a perusal of the book when I first opened.  That first glance gave me a very different view of the book than when I actually read itvery different.   But since your perusal is apparently as thorough as my reading,  how could you possibly be wrong.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:57:52 -0600Subject: [TruthTalk] books we MUST read???









JD, when I tried to respond to your email it crashed my computer.  So I?m reposting on a different email from what you sent me.  Our computers definitely have bad blood for each other!
 
So according to your theory, if I peruse a book and find it to be unappealing or uninteresting then I MUST read it, just to be sure!  When, then, do I get to read the books I WANT to read jd I don?t have eternity in this life! iz
 
 
 
 Linda,  if you posted to me under this heading, a few minutes agp,   I can't open it.   It has that little paper clip thing.    
 
jd
 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book "revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said nothing that argues this point.  
 
jd

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?

2005-12-08 Thread Judy Taylor




I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave 
the way - which is to
start with themselves.  My response is not an 
excuse for anything - what am I excused from??
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
   yet another excuse to not answer questions.   You and 
  Kevin have this down to an art form !!
   
   
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  

  OK - You go first
   
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that 
which they say is not embodied truth? J
ust say so so that we may factor that in when 
reading you.
  
  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)

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

Blainerb: Like most of what you quote, your author was apparently depending on the ignorance of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith. A BYU Professor depending on IGNORANCE? CMON Even though Mr Quinn was EX'd by his church http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml He still maintains his faith in that church He has moved on to a new school. He certainly does not try to persuade against Joe Smith! Although somewhat dated read his own words: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mormhist.htm ON BEING A MORMON HISTORIAN Student History Association, Brigham Young University, Fall,
1981 (see above for PROOF as to who really wants IGNORANCE!) APOSTLE Boyd K. Packer said "One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history" is himself in spiritual jeopardy" What is this ADVANCED HISTORY and why does HISTORY pose jeopardy? Why are Some NOT READY? Jupiter is the ruler I do not believe that even FARMS or Kerry Shirts has claimed error in this particular. Are you privvy to such? Are you correcting the Professor/Historian?
Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:WOW you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST? What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep? The Author is D M Quinn He is a commited Mormon. He is a Professor at BYU from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited by supernatural
creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism. This thoroughly researched examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic
formula utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:14:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the
first Decan of Capricorn whose ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 1805.Blainerb: Like most of what you quote, your author was apparently depending on the ignorance of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith. Yes, Joseph was born on December 23, and that means the sun was in the first decan of Capricorn. However, the ruling planet for Capricorn was never Jupiter--it is and always has been Saturn. Jupiter is the ruler of one sign of the zodiac only and that is Sagittarius. Upon checking other signs for Joseph Smith, I see the moon was in the sign Aquarius, also ruled by Saturn. If Joseph had worn a Saturn talisman, your writer's comments might have some validity--as it is, it's obvious he's a liar who cares nothing for the truth.
Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org









I’m so glad my grandchildren are
being homeschooled—they are brighter, more socially adept (AND prettier) than the average child!!! J iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
10:38 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-A&E



 



While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who
overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the
ills of the world.  





 





NONSENSE





That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from
weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! 
Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like
a greenhouse.





Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do
them harm is a foolish philosophy





 





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/





 





http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127





The Next Generation of Leadership
The most important people are the ones that history glosses over and
such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of kids who were
Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our
cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a
fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of
homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting
percentage goes up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more
likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses,
compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be
social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than
the general population.

Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure their
children aren't led astray by the dominant culture are getting extraordinary
results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to
their parents religious beliefs.

The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century
because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but
am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as
a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an
adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of
homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness,
and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.





And the nay sayers said "O NO
how are they going to learn to Socialize?"

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?

OK I am not the Oracle of truth. But I Know where to find it!     JN 17:17 THY WORD IS TRUTH  There he goes again!  JD why don't you start up your own PT (People Talk)  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:    yet another excuse to not answer questions.   You and Kevin have this down to an art form !!     -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:37:00 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?OK - You go first     On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which they say is not embodied truth? J  ust say so so that we may factor that in when reading you.    judyt    He that says "I know
 Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

[TruthTalk] books we MUST read???















JD, when I tried to respond to your email
it crashed my computer.  So I’m reposting on a different email from what
you sent me.  Our computers definitely have bad blood for each other!

 

So according to your theory, if I peruse a
book and find it to be unappealing or uninteresting then I MUST read it, just
to be sure!  When, then, do I get to read the books I WANT to read jd I
don’t have eternity in this life! iz

 

 

 

 Linda,  if you posted to me under this
heading, a few minutes agp,   I can't open it.   It has
that little paper clip thing.    

 

jd

 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 

 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book
"revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had
you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said
nothing that argues this point.  

 

jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

Go back to sleepLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin please, what was this IDIOT, JEW comment you posted?- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 08, 2005 08:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...It is not that He can not do. It is that he will not do. God does not speak thru profane persons such as Cain & Esau. In fact he calls them names as in "PROFANE" Though he cried Esau was REJECTED! details in the HOLY BIBLE Nobody is railing against the grace of God. God offered his grace it was rejected, just like He has offered truth. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was
rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God? Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's observations.. Amen Linda! David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society
thingy). MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD! There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of course) Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

  Help me see MY ACTION below?     IMAGINE   Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven  Some say it's easy if you try.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   I am addressing your actions  not your "caracter."       -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?Again you choose to personalize?  Are you attacking my caracter?     Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:40:57 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?IMAGINE   Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven  Some say it's easy if you try.   Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?

Are you up to being able to separate the holy from the profane yourself Lance?     Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES     Lance defaults to NOLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!     Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are wrong concerning JRRT & CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?- Original Message -   From: Judy Taylor   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Sent: December 08, 2005 07:25  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?Are you up to being able to separate the holy from the profane yourself Lance?        On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir"
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY & CSL) were not speaking for Him (God).     IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them (JRRT & CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!     Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this point?    judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

Wow big demands for someone who will not put substance behind his beliefs.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis actually knew the Lord'     Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a  belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following questions:        1. Do you stand by your
 assessment that csl did not 'know' (define please) the Lord?     2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some biblical interpretation, please)     thanks,     Lance
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'FOR THE RECORD I DON't believe csl actually knew the Lord

No one is consigning persons to Hell.  Persons are responsible to God if they reject his ways He is the one that will consign them FOREVER.     All the great big crocidile tears in the world will not change God's truth. There is a HELL and Most people end up going there according to Jesus Christ.Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Your DISCERNMENT ON THIS MATTER (who knows, maybe a few other matters also) is wide of the mark. I've occasionally drawn a comparison between yourself and David Miller on this discernment thingy, Judy. Do take care won't you, Judy, in consigning persons to Hell?   
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.       NONSENSE  That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like a greenhouse.  Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10336018/from/RSS/     http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127 
 The Next Generation of LeadershipThe most important people are the ones that history glosses over and such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than the general population.Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to
 ensure their children aren't led astray by the dominant culture are getting extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious beliefs.The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness, and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.  And the nay sayers said "O NO how are they going to learn to Socialize?"  Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  DaveH writes:      FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.       Not necessarily; being over protective through fear is one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment in the fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and watchful eye on their side.     I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to
 such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable?      This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.  But we are fearfully and wonderfully made and God has given us an immune system which should be able to throw off anything that comes our way when not compromised by sin.      I see that somewhat as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good and evil.  I hope that makes a little sense, Terry.  (Though I'm sure some TTers will take exception.)  FTRI don't think that is the sole reason for the tree though.     The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His
 creation to eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.   judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John
 2:4)  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down




Ah let her whine, John. Ya know kids these days 
a born with a sense of entitlement!
THIS IS A JOKE, DAVID/CHRISTINE!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 10:45
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people 
  down
  
  
  
  Besides this particular thread,  Christine,  could you give me 
  an example of a "put down" from me to  you.? I have tried to be very 
  respectful of you because of of your relationship to David.   Give me an example(s), please.   
   
  jdm> 
  wrote:
  
  
JD, I feel put down 
by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the 
issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me 
feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you 
asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  ALL of my posts are designed to help others  --  so my 
  percentage would be,  ahh,  well, 
  zero!!   Would that be your understanding as well?
   
  jd  -Original 
  Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0800 
  (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
  

  
  Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?
   
  And for a even more interesting note
  In your eyes what is your 
  Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


Nonsense  -  but as a 20 something,   I 
understand you point of view.   Putting poeple down is the 
subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings.   Go 
refigure. 
 
jd  -Original 
Message-From: Christine Miller To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 
(PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down



Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with 
them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the 
truth is, we must learn to be 
wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and 
more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The 
feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to 
obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and 
I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they 
chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has 
stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family 
unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and 
humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, 
etc. Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act 
of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This 
passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially 
in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or 
rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the 
days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by 
force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people 
  down.   You have allies on this forum but no real 
  brethren  (except -  possibly, Dean).   I suspect 
  that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.   
  The "Cathoilic" 
  thingy is important only 
  to you  --  not to Lance.   You have not 
  spoken honestly about Barth.   I suspect this is a habit of 
  yours  --  speaking dishonestly of other's 
  beliefs.   C.S.L included.   
   
   
  jd
   
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 
  (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the 
  wardrobe' two thumbs up
  

  
  
  Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
  The mormons love 
  him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'
   
  "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I 
  could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the 
  fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about 
  child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew 
  up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to 
  embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way 
  at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying 
  an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?


 
I am addressing your actions  not your "caracter." 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Again you choose to personalize?
Are you attacking my caracter?
 
Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:40:57 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



IMAGINE 
Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden,  Kevin Deegan IN Heaven
Some say it's easy if you try.
 



Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?


 
 yet another excuse to not answer questions.   You and Kevin have this down to an art form !!
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:37:00 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?





OK - You go first
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which they say is not embodied truth? J
ust say so so that we may factor that in when reading you.
  judyt    He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Besides this particular thread, Christine, could you give me an example of a "put down" from me to you.? I have tried to be very respectful of you because of of your relationship to David. Give me an example(s), please.
jdm> wrote:

JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well?
jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?
And for a even more interesting note
In your eyes what is your Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure.
jd -Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc. Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.
The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance. You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs. C.S.L included.
jd
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up

Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'
"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm
Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism " (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got dru

Re: [TruthTalk] DAVE HANSEN




Thanks Dave. Glad to hear that you took note of it. 

 
L

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 09:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DAVE 
HANSEN
  DAVEH:   Yes Lance, I saw it and simply have not had 
  enough time to respond to all the posts (including John's).  The past few 
  nights I've had conflicting activities after work, and I've not been getting 
  enough sleep.  I'll try to get caught up (sorta) tonight or 
  tomorrow.  No guarantees though!Lance Muir wrote: 
  



It may have been the 'lost in the suffle 
thingy, Dave. Did you not see my specific questions concerning your 
clarification re:A&E from a distinctly Mormon perspective. I GENUINE 
BELIEVE THAT SOME ON TT MAY BE UNAWARE JUST HOW DIFFERENTLY YOU VIEW 'god's 
lineage'!! I'm not suggesting deception on your part, Dave. If you can't 
find the post then, I'll post again.
 
thanks,
 
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@mail.innglory.org





monkeys and horses
do not have a soul.

DAVEH:  ???  Aren't you speculating when you make that claim, Terry? 
What Biblical evidence supports that theory?

    

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
I won't speculate, Dave, but I should point out that monkeys and
horses
do not have a soul.
==
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  

He knew they would sin.  He did not plan
for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.

DAVEH:   I don't quite see the difference, Terry.  However, I will
admit to being biased by my belief that He did plan
for them to fall.

As to their descendants missing the mark, who knows?  All we
can
do is
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.

DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree on this one, Terry.  IMHO, it is safe
to speculate that some (if not most) of A&E's descendants would
have transgressed.  Look at A&Eit didn't take them too long to
transgress.  Do you think Cain, Hitler or any of the other villains of
history would have remained angels?  I submit to you that there would
proportionally be very few who would not have transgressed.  Consider
another example.  Adults have preached to kids ad nauseam to avoid
smoking, alcohol, sex and drugs.   Just denying them such, entices many
it seems.   Sowould you reasonably expect any but a few of
A&E's descendants to withstand the temptations that Eve failed to
avoid?

    Here's something to ponder:  What effect would monkeys, horses or
whatever animals inhabiting the Garden of Eden eating the forbidden
fruit have had IFF A&E hadn't?

Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
  
This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to
accept.
God is omnicient,  He knew they would sin.  He did not plan
for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.
  As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All
we
can do is
speculate, and speculation often leads to error.
=
  
  
Dave Hansen wrote:
  


He wanted Adam and Eve to
ruin it for everyone?

if they had not they would have saved
themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache,
suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.


DAVEH:   Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one
facet of the A&E situation of which I am most keen.   One of my
earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me
in which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden
fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live
forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was less than
religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being
intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again.

    I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me
say, Protestant) belief about the fall.  If A&E had not
transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have
transgressed?  In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do
something, is to forbid him from doing it!  Don't you think that at
some point---probably much sooner than later---one of A&E's
children would have fallen?  Or do you believe that of the billions who
descended from A&E, none would ever have transgressed?  Just what
are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?!

    Sowhy do most Christians blame A&E for the misery in the
world, when it was inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it
expected, but it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that as
well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from
before the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please let me
know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently don't believe
that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see why your perspective
perplexes me?  It doesn't seem logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm
missing something about the way you understand it.



Judy wrote:

I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they
would have saved themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache,
suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would the
Lord
want that for them/us?


Terry Clifton wrote:

  
  
God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no
matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times I
am given that option.  God will give you the option, but it is not His
desire. I think that must be one of the toughest parts of being God,
wanting what is best for His people, yet allowing them to make choices
that bring pain and death.
  
Look around yo

Re: [TruthTalk] DAVE HANSEN





DAVEH:   Yes Lance, I saw it and simply have not had enough time to
respond to all the posts (including John's).  The past few nights I've
had conflicting activities after work, and I've not been getting enough
sleep.  I'll try to get caught up (sorta) tonight or tomorrow.  No
guarantees though!

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  It may have been the 'lost in the
suffle thingy, Dave. Did you not see my specific questions concerning
your clarification re:A&E from a distinctly Mormon perspective. I
GENUINE BELIEVE THAT SOME ON TT MAY BE UNAWARE JUST HOW DIFFERENTLY YOU
VIEW 'god's lineage'!! I'm not suggesting deception on your part, Dave.
If you can't find the post then, I'll post again.
   
  thanks,
   
  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] There he goes again


 
 Read your post and figure it out.   "Games"   is what you are all about,  Kevin.   The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is.   And don't talk to me about "third requests."  You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you.   Once again,  The gamemeister in you has the rule.  
 
jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.   
 
You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.
 
Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Your games don't work with people who actually think and walk upright at the same time.    -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please - second request - show us where I said he was evil
 
I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again
 



Nor do you speak for my friends,  Christine.  Drive-by postings have no lasting influence.   It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing,  it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace.   Ridiculous and hypocritical.  Linda praises CSL,  deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me  !!   lol.

 

jd 
-Original Message-From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again


JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down.   You have allies on this forum but no real brethren  (except -  possibly, Dean).   I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.   

The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you  --  not to Lance.   You have not spoken honestly about Barth.   I suspect this is a habit of yours  --  speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.   C.S.L included.   

 

 

jd

 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up



Lance likes him because he is so Catholic

The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'

 

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).

 

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm

Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, Th

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

Well that really substantive. I take it back and, 
humbly apologize. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: December 08, 2005 09:04
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
  those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...

  Ive changed my mind 
  since joining TT.  I used to think like most of you do that its expected 
  that a Christian will sin every day.  Now I think thats a lie of the 
  devil.  Ive learned that Jesus not only delivered us from the Penalty of 
  sin, but from Slavery to sin.  Halleluia!!! 
  iz

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:00 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
  those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...

  I rarely attempt to change the 
  minds of those I deem unchangeable. No 'drive-by' here, Linda. Please 
  illustrate, sans archives, any who have changed their mind on any issue 
  whatsoever on TT? A substantive issue would be best but, I'll settle for 
  somethin' teeny. 

- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
December 08, 2005 08:43

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by 
adoption through Christ in God's 
family...

Lance, if you have 
any substantive evidence in favor of Feminism for Believers please let us 
know.  Meanwhile please cut the personality analyses.  
iz

PS Im the one who 
accused you of drive-by shooting posts.  Youve done it again.  
All put-downs; no evidence.  Hollow bullets.  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:31 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
family...

Forever rail against the 
graciousness of this selfsame God?

Judy & Kevin wish to inform 
us what God can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). 
Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's observations. Amen 
Linda!

David, Christine, Judy and Linda 
rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in 
marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are 
rather duplicitous on the society 
thingy).

MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a 
definition. 

Judy employed the word 'sad' 
three times in a post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for 
y'all GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, 
misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of 
misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 

'Drive by posts'..was that a 
Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega 
stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of 
course)

Re: [TruthTalk]


 
Linda,  if you posted to me under this heading, a few minutes agp,   I can't open it.   It has that little paper clip thing.    
 
jd -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 





 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book "revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said nothing that argues this point.  
 
jd
  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:44 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 






My time is too valuable to spend reading every book on the planet, whether it appeals to me or not.  Lance is the one who does that. iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:10 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
 



Perusing was the problem.    
 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:16:23 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 


 

I?d agree with that.  I remember perusing that book at the library many, many years ago and found it revolting. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:26 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 

 



 


 The Gospel According to Judas   -    has any of the Critics read this book?  


 


Does anyone know  --  other than Lance and perhaps Bill (alright  !!  and maybe G)  that the book is much more than a theological statement,  perhaps in a sense,  not a statement at all?  


 


jd

RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...









I’ve changed my mind since joining
TT.  I used to think like most of you do that it’s expected that a
Christian will sin every day.  Now I think that’s a lie of the devil.  I’ve
learned that Jesus not only delivered us from the Penalty of sin, but from
Slavery to sin.  Halleluia!!! iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
8:00 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it
that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in
God's family...



 



I rarely attempt to change the minds of those I deem
unchangeable. No 'drive-by' here, Linda. Please illustrate, sans archives, any
who have changed their mind on any issue whatsoever on TT? A substantive issue
would be best but, I'll settle for somethin' teeny. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: December 08, 2005
08:43





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through
Christ in God's family...





 



Lance, if you have any substantive
evidence in favor of “Feminism” for Believers please let us
know.  Meanwhile please cut the personality analyses.  iz

 

PS I’m the one who accused you of
drive-by shooting posts.  You’ve done it again.  All put-downs;
no evidence.  Hollow bullets.  









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
4:31 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Why is it
that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in
God's family...



 



Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God?





 





Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through
Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's
observations. Amen Linda!





 





David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism,
absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the
home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society
thingy).





 





MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 





 





Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post
yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!!
When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE
IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 





 





'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin'
brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way
to go (ceptin' now and then, of course)

Re: [TruthTalk]


 THE POINT OF MY POST IS  you found the book "revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book.  Now, had you read the book , your opinion might have been the same.  You have said nothing that argues this point.  
 
jd
  -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:44 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 






My time is too valuable to spend reading every book on the planet, whether it appeals to me or not.  Lance is the one who does that. iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:10 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
 



Perusing was the problem.    
 -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:16:23 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 


 

I?d agree with that.  I remember perusing that book at the library many, many years ago and found it revolting. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:26 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 

 



 


 The Gospel According to Judas   -    has any of the Critics read this book?  


 


Does anyone know  --  other than Lance and perhaps Bill (alright  !!  and maybe G)  that the book is much more than a theological statement,  perhaps in a sense,  not a statement at all?  


 


jd

RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...









Bingo.  (God’s plan is the only way
to joy.) iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
7:56 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it
that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in
God's family...



 



Honestly, no I have not.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: December 08, 2005
08:53





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through
Christ in God's family...





 



 

Lance, why don’t you ask those of us
who have supposedly been “marginalized” what we think of our
station in life?  Have you ever met a happy Feminist??  iz















David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the
believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and
society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society thingy).

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...




I rarely attempt to change the minds of those I 
deem unchangeable. No 'drive-by' here, Linda. Please illustrate, sans archives, 
any who have changed their mind on any issue whatsoever on TT? A substantive 
issue would be best but, I'll settle for somethin' teeny. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 08:43
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
  those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...
  
  
  Lance, if you have 
  any substantive evidence in favor of Feminism for Believers please let us 
  know.  Meanwhile please cut the personality analyses.  
  iz
   
  PS Im the one who 
  accused you of drive-by shooting posts.  Youve done it again.  All 
  put-downs; no evidence.  Hollow bullets.  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:31 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those 
  people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...
   
  
  Forever rail against the 
  graciousness of this selfsame God?
  
   
  
  Judy & Kevin wish to inform us 
  what God can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all 
  ought to read Linda Shield's observations. Amen 
  Linda!
  
   
  
  David, Christine, Judy and Linda 
  rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in 
  marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather 
  duplicitous on the society thingy).
  
   
  
  MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 
  
  
   
  
  Judy employed the word 'sad' three 
  times in a post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all 
  GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, 
  misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' 
  goin' on here children! 
  
   
  
  'Drive by posts'..was that a 
  Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega 
  stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of 
  course)

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

Honestly, no I have not.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: December 08, 2005 08:53
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
  those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...

  Lance, why dont you 
  ask those of us who have supposedly been marginalized what we think of our 
  station in life?  Have you ever met a happy Feminist??  
  iz

David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against 
feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing 
women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous 
on the society 
thingy).

RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...









 

Lance, why don’t you ask those of us
who have supposedly been “marginalized” what we think of our
station in life?  Have you ever met a happy Feminist??  iz















David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the
believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and
society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society thingy).

RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...









Lance, if you have any substantive evidence
in favor of “Feminism” for Believers please let us know.  Meanwhile
please cut the personality analyses.  iz

 

PS I’m the one who accused you of
drive-by shooting posts.  You’ve done it again.  All put-downs; no
evidence.  Hollow bullets.  









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005
4:31 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Why is it
that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in
God's family...



 



Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God?





 





Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through
Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's
observations. Amen Linda!





 





David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism,
absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the
home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society
thingy).





 





MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 





 





Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post
yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!!
When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE
IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 





 





'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin'
brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way
to go (ceptin' now and then, of course)

RE: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...









Judy, how about considering the fact that
CSL was MUCH OLDER than you when he got saved, and maybe just hadn’t had
all the years and/or Bible Study Fellowship experiences that you have. 
You have grown over the years, according to your words below.  I’m
sure CSL did also.  No one has it all together immediately.  Cut
people some slack; especially those who spend their lives writing and speaking
Christian apologetics to the best of their understanding.  I think his
personal choices were exemplary.  And since when is “making a lot of
money writing” a sin? 

 

Now who else can we slice and dice on
TT?  iz

 















 





I read Linda's
observations and there was a time when I may have agreed with her - However, I
now believe that a heart truly surrendered to Christ would have layed aside the
classical education and mythology rather than try to mix it like oil and
water.  Paul had a pretty good education himself and he counted it as dung
compared to the knowledge of Christ. For the record I don't believe CSL
actually knew the Lord though he may have been up on doctrinal orthodoxy and he
made a lot of money with his writing.  His personal choices tell the rest
of the story.

[TruthTalk] THE TRUTH HIMSELF****DAVID MILLER PLEASE TAKE NOTE!!




Judy and I, at least for a nanosecond, believe the 
same thing. This, IMO, is that at which I was getting and, so it would appear, 
was Judy.
 
 
HE IS THE TRUTH. Our statements concerning Him are 
always provisional. That's the best that even you can do, 
David.

[TruthTalk] I DIDN'T READ IT BUT I DID FIND IT REVOLTING says Iz




There's something afoot Watson! No there isn't, it's just a 
contradiction. 
 
- 

  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 08:32
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  
  
  My time is too 
  valuable to spend reading every book on the planet, whether it appeals to me 
  or not.  Lance is the one who does that. iz
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:10 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  
   
  
  
  
  Perusing was the 
  problem.    
  -Original 
  Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 
  2005 21:16:23 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  
  
   
  
  I?d agree with 
  that.  I remember perusing that book at the library many, many years ago 
  and found it revolting. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:26 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
   The Gospel According to 
  Judas   -    has any of the Critics read 
  this book?  
  
  
   
  
  
  Does anyone know  --  
  other than Lance and perhaps Bill (alright  !!  and maybe G)  
  that the book is much more than a theological statement,  perhaps in a 
  sense,  not a statement at 
  all?  
  
  
   
  
  
  jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy asks Lance

2005-12-08 Thread Judy Taylor




Are Kevin and Judy chasing them down to behead them or 
burn them at the stake taking away their
opportunity to repent, Lord willing?  The latter 
(as you call them) do not argue with orthodoxy as they
are part of it but neither do they sanctify the Lord in 
their hearts which is apparent by the fruit of their
lives.  People who make a stand for the truth are 
never heroes ... Look at what happened to THE
TRUTH HIMSELF
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:17:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  WHY AREN'T YOU JUST AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
  HERETIC HUNTERS AS YOU ARE ABOUT THE 
  OCCULTIC TYPE FANTASY FOLK?
   
  Lance answers Judy
   
  I am MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HERETIC 
  HUNTERS as the latter are not heretics, Judy.
   
  Lance ansks himself: Who are the HERETIC 
  HUNTERS?
   
  Lance answers himself (schizophrenia anyone?) 
  Judy & Kevin are the HH on TT. This is why I tend you respond to you, 
  Judy. Kevin pretty much gets DELETE from me. He strikes me as both bright and, 
  informed but says nothing worth hovering over (IMO). 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

RE: [TruthTalk]









When I was younger and smarter.  

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
10:19 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 



 



How many years ago would that be?





 





Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Wednesday,
December 07, 2005 8:16 PM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 





 



 

I’d agree with that.  I
remember perusing that book at the library many, many years ago and found it
revolting. iz









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
9:26 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 



 





 





 The Gospel According to Judas  
-    has any of the Critics read this book?  





 





Does anyone know  --  other than Lance and
perhaps Bill (alright  !!  and maybe G)  that the book is much
more than a theological statement,  perhaps in a sense,  not a statement at all?  





 





jd

RE: [TruthTalk]









My time is too valuable to spend reading
every book on the planet, whether it appeals to me or not.  Lance is the
one who does that. iz

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
10:10 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 



 







Perusing was the problem.    



 
-Original Message-
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:16:23 -0600
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 





 





I?d agree with that.  I remember
perusing that book at the library many, many years ago and found it revolting.
iz













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005
9:26 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 







 









 









 The Gospel According to Judas  
-    has any of the Critics read this book?  









 









Does anyone know  --  other than Lance and
perhaps Bill (alright  !!  and maybe G)  that the book is much
more than a theological statement,  perhaps in a sense,  not a statement at all?  









 









jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...




Kevin please,   what was this IDIOT, JEW 
comment you posted?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 08:13
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that 
  those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's 
  family...
  
  It is not that He can not do.
  It is that he will not do.
   
   
  God does not speak thru profane persons such as Cain & Esau.
  In fact he calls them names as in "PROFANE"
  Though he cried Esau was REJECTED!
   details in the HOLY BIBLE
  Nobody is railing against the grace of God.
  God offered his grace it was rejected, just like He has offered 
  truth.
  Lest there be any fornicator, or profane 
  person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his 
  birthright.
  For ye know how that afterward, when he would 
  have inherited the blessing, he was 
  rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it 
  carefully with tears.  Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  



Forever rail against the graciousness of this 
selfsame God?
 
Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God 
can't do through Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to 
read Linda Shield's observations.. Amen Linda!
 
David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against 
feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing 
women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous 
on the society thingy).
 
MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 

 
Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a 
post yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS 
TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM 
then, HE IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here 
children! 
 
'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? 
Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't 
the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of course) 
 
 
  
  
  
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
  Shopping

Re: [TruthTalk] On employing the words OF GOD without the WORD OF GOD