date:20050209

So are we getting better  better and in whose eyes?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


perhaps..perhaps therearemultiple reasons for this

..however, rather than boring you with that kind of list,it maymore beimportant to point outthe singularreality of the reverse situation..maybe this idea: That'life' keepschanging effectseverybody who's ever 'lived'

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:24:15 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


..past preachers ..would have.. insulted oursmooth cultered, high falooting, modern sensibilities ||
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Unity with error is subversion to God
Community with error is Complicity with error
God has commanded that we identify and avoid or separate from error
A recent example of complicity, is the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving being decieved
He is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialog
Yet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.
His basis for acceptance and referencefor doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw
At the same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of Evangelical support
A number of LDS media have quoted Mouw for support

Censoring silencing and Excomunicating scholars
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon116.html

ANYTHING GOES
In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. (Apostle Boyd K. Packer Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981, pages 263-64, 266-67)

Everything else including facts, evidence, and truth itself?Apostle Oaks "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything elsemay be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." Introduction p. xliii f28 in Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon

"the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose . . . threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers." Charles W. Penrose to President John Taylor, 1887

i guess i can tolerate this postifother readerscan tolerate it, too

..is it the Spirit saying 'unitysplit'?

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:35:50 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

ON TOLERANCE
"The truth is being lost in our churches,
||
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE are the most Intolerant people.
For instance Sodomites will shout you down all opinions to the contrary are met with force
LDS this is part of the Victim Whine it has become a habitShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:









Im not big on tolerance. Nor unity at the price of truth. Iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:10 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior


while there's a premium on clarity, David, average TT readers dealing with 'strife'may want to consider a fuller, perhaps more concrete picture of your view of tolerance



somesample questions might help out:



how does tolerance factor into your world view? E.g., is tolerance global or is it ofcertain people?



islove associated as closelywith tolerance asit is with unity?



what reference/sallowone to form the clearest answers to questions about'tolerance';also, about the relationship between toleranceand unity?



G





On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:38:57 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:*note subject change

Subject was "Basis of Unity"

||

We need to practice more tolerance ..
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Censoring a NON Faith promoting work
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/4.23.html
LDS 'Insider' SuspendedAuthor stands by critical book.by John W. Kennedy | posted 02/08/2005 9:00 a.m.Grant H. Palmer had expected to be punished by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for writing the 2002 book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. But the delayed timing caught him off guard. Last December, Keith Adams, the leader at Grant's church in Sandy, Utah, disfellowshiped him. The sanction means Palmer may no longer speak publicly or take sacraments during the suspension of unspecified length.
"They felt [the book] had done some damage to people's faith by causing them to doubt Mormon foundational claims," Palmer said. He is retired after 34 years as a college-level lds educator.
An Insider's View argues that LDS founder Joseph Smith didn't miraculously translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates. It also examines "Smith's largely rewritten, materialistic, idealized, and controversial accounts of the church's founding."
Palmer joins an increasing number of Mormons and ex-Mormons publicly questioning the validity of the origins of the church, including Simon Southerton (CT, October 2004, p. 20) and Thomas W. Murphy (CT, March 2003, p. 24).
LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah declined to comment.
Palmer, a fourth-generation Mormon, still wants to be a part of the church. But he isn't ready to toe the line. "I don't know how I can repent if the book is true."
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[TruthTalk] Repentance

*note Subject change
Subject was   Basis of Unity and now is Repentance.

Hi Bill.  I realize that I am now entering into my reductionist mode, which 
in the past has made you a little uncomfortable.  I am not trying to force 
this upon you.  If you would rather just let this matter rest as is, that 
would be fine.  However, I would like to press in further and define this 
word repentance before we define the gospel and ultimately talk about the 
basis of unity that comes through the gospel.  We have a significant 
difference in understanding repentance, and until we hash that out a little, 
it may be difficult for us to come to a mutual understanding about the 
gospel and how it should be preached.

Bill Taylor wrote:
 I think repentance now, on this side of the
 cross, is a very (super)natural response to
 the Good News of our salvation. When Jesus
 said repent he was speaking to the Jews,
 those to whom the promise of the Kingdom
 of God had been given. They would need
 to repent of there false concepts concerning
 the kingdom ... When you (and most others)
 strip Jesus' word from this very Jewish context
 and use it as the first words to our post resurrection
 and ascension gospel, you change the very specific
 meaning which Jesus was attempting convey.
 ... Peter told them to change their minds about Jesus
 ... tell them to change their minds about this Jesus
 who died o secure for them the forgiveness of their
 sins . . .

I feel rather confident that I can go to some passages in the Bible and show 
that the Jewish context of repentance is not how you understand it to be.  I 
am not saying that what you have shared is false.  I'm just saying that it 
is not the complete picture.  Furthermore, I think the emphasis is wrong.

Before my taking time to do this, I would like a nod from you that moving in 
this direction would be interesting for you.  If you object because I am 
being too reductionistic, or changing the subject, or whatever other 
objections have been raised by you or others when I attempt to be 
reductionistic and identify problem premises in our working paradigms, 
please say so now and it will save both of us time and frustration.

For now, let me summarize your statements above about repentance.  What I 
hear you saying is that repentance is:

1.  Changing one's mind about false concepts concerning the kingdom.

2.  Changing one's mind about Jesus.

Please note that I often include both of these in my preaching and teaching. 
I find myself challenging people to change their minds about 1) sin, 2) 
Jesus Christ, 3) the Bible, and 4) what the kingdom of God is and how one 
enters it.  So my desire to discuss this more deeply is not to refute your 
perspective, but to add some dimensions to it and to show that the Jewish 
context includes more than your present perspective.

So give me a nod, and I will proceed, or ask me to back off, and I will 
oblige.  Thanks.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Unity with error is subversion to God
Community with error is Complicity with error
God has commanded that we identify and avoid or separate from error

A recent example of complicity, is the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving being decieved
He is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialog
Yet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.
His basis for acceptance and reference for doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw
At the same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of Evangelical support
A number of LDS media have quoted Mouw for support

There is no unity apart from "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle manifest in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a comprehensive doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said "proof") that unity is not based on creedal concepts.

Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church remains in spite of skewed ideas and differing expressions of faith. If the Miller Four cannot arrive at a doctrinally agreeable listing -- it is little wonder that no else can either.

The fact of the matter is this --- we are individually servants of a Another. The vegetarian and the holy day brother in Romans 14 WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you only substitute your truth for the biblical message when you (and I mean "anyone") respond by arguing that meats and special days were not "important" doctrines of the day. Romans 14 gives us the inspired reason for accepting others as they stand in faith with Christ. And I Cor 13 gives us sign posts as we move to align our attitude with Christ's in dealing with disagreements.

Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:56:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE are the most Intolerant people.


Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when they read this statement from the master of bullhorn evangelism? 

JD

[TruthTalk] Original Sin

*note subject change
Subject was   Basis of Unity (Bill) and now is Original Sin

Bill Taylor wrote:
 ... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned
 to them as sin until that time that they have both a
 cognitive and a moral awareness of the law,
 i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression
 of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).

Izzy wrote:
 Agreed.

Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5?  The 
following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of 
condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man:

Romans 5:18
(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation

Several verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning 
over men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:

Romans 5:14
(14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had 
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression

The concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions. 
These people who experienced death did so because of someone who sinned 
before them.  Furthermore, they had no real understanding that that their 
actions were sinful because there was no law.  I have to admit that I tend 
to look at matters the way you two do, but I fear that much of that is 
because of my culture and upbringing.  These passages challenge my way of 
thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have 
just agreed upon.  Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you 
can.  I am very interested.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

*note subject change
Subject was " Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"

Bill Taylor wrote:
... I do not think their transgressions are reckoned
to them as sin until that time that they have both a
cognitive and a moral awareness of the law,
i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression
of such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).

Izzy wrote:
Agreed.

Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 5? The
following passage seems to indicate that an advserse sentence of
condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one man:

Romans 5:18
(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation

Several verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning
over men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:

Romans 5:14
(14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression

The concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to your perceptions.
These people who experienced death did so because of someone who sinned
before them. Furthermore, they had no real understanding that that their
actions were sinful because there was no law. I have to admit that I tend
to look at matters the way you two do, but I fear that much of that is
because of my culture and upbringing. These passages challenge my way of
thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two have
just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you
can. I am very interested.

David Miller.

Allow me one comment. When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget 5:12. We are complicit with Adam because we, ALSO, have sinned. Adam's sin opened the door to death -- but his life did not condemn us apart from our own failings. No need to respond to this. I will butt out for now.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Gary wrote:
 how does tolerance factor into your
 world view? E.g., is tolerance global
 or is it of certain people?

Tolerance is global.  God is our example in this.  If God were intolerant, 
he would have wiped out the world long ago.  Instead, we find him to be very 
patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity.  He does not 
condone the wicked.  He constantly speaks to them concerning their need to 
repent and do what is right.  However, he seeks for a voluntary 
understanding and submission, not one that is appropriated by force.  There 
are many other factors involved, however, and sometimes we see him come down 
hard as an object lesson to the rest of us (e.g., I'm thinking right now of 
Ananias and Sapphira).

Gary wrote:
 is love associated as closely with tolerance
 as it is with unity?

Yes.

Religious groups generally tend to be intolerant.  This is human nature, not 
God's nature.  This is why we have different sects.  People congregate 
around commonly shared beliefs and shun those who do not receive the same. 
Such is the root of denominationalism, and extreme sects which severely cut 
off others are considered cults.  An example of this would be the attitude 
of Jews not to fellowship with Gentiles, or of males separating from females 
in the meetings, or separating from others because of dietary restrictions, 
or separating because of doctrinal disagreements of the Godhead, the 
Trinity, modes of baptism, the need for holiness, grace, etc.  Even when the 
base of the separation is a truth, if it leads to unloving behavior between 
individuals, it is wrong.

Concerning the community of believers, the local church, I really see only 
one thing which we are to be intolerant about.  We are to be intolerant of 
sin, which is defined as any action that does not have love as its source. 
This is because fellowship is adversely affected by the sin of even one 
person.  There is no room for sin in the body of Christ.

Regarding the word tolerance, I should perhaps make it clear that tolerance 
does not mean that we think certain viewpoints are free to be shared 
unchallenged.  It means that we allow views to be shared, and we readily 
challenge false views, and admonish one another to change views that are 
contrary to truth.  Tolerance should give freedom to the expression of 
viewpoints, but it does not give a license for anyone to embrace falsehoods.

An example:  as a parent, suppose my child comes home from school and she 
tells me that she doesn't believe in God anymore because she learned in 
school that evolution through natural laws explains our existence.  If I was 
intolerant, perhaps I would yell at her and send her to her room without 
supper until she apologized to me for articulating such terrible ideas.  On 
the other hand, if I am tolerant, I would simply take time to instruct her 
properly about problems in her viewpoint and show her many good reasons to 
continue believing in God.  In fact, I would probably do it in a loving and 
cheerful way while we were having supper together.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

John wrote:
 When Paul speaks of the sin of Adam and our
 relation to that, let's not forget 5:12.   We are
 complicit with Adam because we, ALSO,
 have sinned.

True enough.  I think we all agree with this.  However, the issue raised by 
Bill was that their transgressions are not reckoned to them until that time 
that they have both a cognitive and moral awareness of the law.  It was said 
that if they don't have an understanding of why their transgressions are 
sinful, then their transgressions are not reckoned to them.

If this were true, why then the argument by Paul that men were condemned 
even though their sin was not like Adam's sin?  And how was it not like 
Adam's sin?  They had no knowledge that they were sinning.  Yet, they 
continued to die.  Why?  Because Adam's sin was imputed to them, and they 
all sinnned.  They continued to sin in ignorance, yet they still suffered 
condemnation.  One transgression resulted in condemnation to all men (Rom. 
5:18).

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:33:12 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Allow me one comment. When Paul
speaks of the sin of Adam and our relation to that, let's not forget
5:12.

jt: Don't let us forget Romans
5:14 either"Nevertheless death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned" So infants are born into a culture of death no matter which way
you look at it.

We are complicit with Adam because we,
ALSO, have sinned.

jt: We and our offspring are
complicit with Adam because we are born into the spiritual death he embraced
when he
chose to disobey God.

Adam's sin opened the door to
death -- but his life did not condemn us apart from our
own failings.

jt: His life condemned us to be
born under the curse ofdeath rather than born into life (by natural
generation) and there
is just one way to reverse the curse and move
from death to life.

No need to respond to this. I
will butt out for now.

jt: No problem
John...

In a message dated 2/9/2005 6:24:08 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*note subject changeSubject was " Basis of Unity
(Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"Bill Taylor wrote:... I
do not think their transgressions are reckonedto them as sin
until that time that they have both acognitive and a moral
awareness of the law,i.e., of right and wrong and why the
transgressionof such is sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).Izzy
wrote:Agreed.Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject
matter of Romans 5? The following passage seems to indicate that
an advserse sentence of condemnation is passed upon all men by the
offense of one man:Romans 5:18(18) Therefore as by the offence
of one judgment came upon all men to condemnationSeveral verses
earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning over men from
Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:Romans 5:14(14)
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgressionThe concepts Paul teaches here appear contradictory to
your perceptions. These people who experienced death did so because of
someone who sinned before them. Furthermore, they had no real
understanding that that their actions were sinful because there was no
law. I have to admit that I tend to look at matters the way you
two do, but I fear that much of that is because of my culture and
upbringing. These passages challenge my way of thinking on this,
and they appear to be problematic to what you two have just agreed
upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if you
can. I am very interested.David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Repentance




Hi David,

I will grant to you that (1) Jesus' call to 
repentance INCLUDED a call to turn from sinfulness; however, surely you will 
agree with me that that could not happen undertheir wrong "paradigm" 
concerning Jesus/God himself and the kingdom of God; that has to get right first 
-- Jesus knew that and meant that firstly; not only that but at the time of the 
call the Spirit had not yet been given to aid in their transformation. As it (2) 
relates to Peter's sermon, and in that context,metanoia is a call to 
believe in Jesus, a change of mind about who they thought he was,to 
believe instead in him as Lord and Christ.You will correctly note that in 
the following verses and early chapters of the Acts account, that repentance of 
those early converts into the Faith also INCLUDED a turning away from sin. I 
would argue, however and once again, that this turning fruit came as a result of 
theirnewly discovered inclusion in Christ, i.e., their changed belief 
about Jesus, aided now by the Holy Spirit, and not as an 
entry-levelcondition for such.

You may write, if you like. To be honest with you, 
I believe it takes a theologically-informed, bigger"picture" to see and 
draw the conclusions which I have drawn. I realize that your training is/has 
been different than my own, so you may draw different conclusions than I have. 
If you wish you may challenge those conclusions. I may learn from your views. I 
will not want to debate the issue.

Blessings,

Bill




- Original Message - 

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:10 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Repentance
 *note Subject change Subject was " Basis of Unity" and 
now is "Repentance."  Hi Bill. I realize that I am now 
entering into my reductionist mode, which  in the past has made you a 
little uncomfortable. I am not trying to force  this upon 
you. If you would rather just let this matter rest as is, that  
would be fine. However, I would like to press in further and define this 
 word "repentance" before we define the gospel and ultimately talk about 
the  basis of unity that comes through the gospel. We have a 
significant  difference in understanding repentance, and until we hash 
that out a little,  it may be difficult for us to come to a mutual 
understanding about the  gospel and how it should be preached. 
 Bill Taylor wrote:  I think repentance now, on this side of 
the  cross, is a very (super)natural response to  the 
Good News of our salvation. When Jesus  said "repent" he was 
speaking to the Jews,  those to whom the promise of the 
Kingdom  of God had been given. They would need  to 
repent of there false concepts concerning  the kingdom ... When you 
(and most others)  strip Jesus' word from this very Jewish 
context  and use it as the first words to our post 
resurrection  and ascension gospel, you change the very 
specific  meaning which Jesus was attempting convey.  
... Peter told them to change their minds about Jesus  ... tell them 
to change their minds about this Jesus  who died o secure for them 
the forgiveness of their  sins . . .  I feel rather 
confident that I can go to some passages in the Bible and show  that the 
Jewish context of repentance is not how you understand it to be. I 
 am not saying that what you have shared is false. I'm just saying 
that it  is not the complete picture. Furthermore, I think the 
emphasis is wrong.  Before my taking time to do this, I would 
like a nod from you that moving in  this direction would be interesting 
for you. If you object because I am  being too reductionistic, or 
changing the subject, or whatever other  objections have been raised by 
you or others when I attempt to be  reductionistic and identify problem 
premises in our working paradigms,  please say so now and it will save 
both of us time and frustration.  For now, let me summarize your 
statements above about repentance. What I  hear you saying is that 
repentance is:  1. Changing one's mind about false 
concepts concerning the kingdom.  2. Changing one's mind 
about Jesus.  Please note that I often include both of these in 
my preaching and teaching.  I find myself challenging people to change 
their minds about 1) sin, 2)  Jesus Christ, 3) the Bible, and 4) what 
the kingdom of God is and how one  enters it. So my desire to 
discuss this more deeply is not to refute your  perspective, but to add 
some dimensions to it and to show that the Jewish  context includes more 
than your present perspective.  So give me a nod, and I will 
proceed, or ask me to back off, and I will  oblige. 
Thanks.  Peace be with you. David Miller.  
  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, 
seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you 
will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

See comments below:

- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22 
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin

 *note subject change Subject was 
" Basis of Unity (Bill)" and now is "Original Sin"  Bill 
Taylor wrote:  ... I do not think their transgressions are 
reckoned  to them as sin until that time that they have both 
a  cognitive and a moral awareness of the law,  
i.e., of right and wrong and why the transgression  of such is 
sinful (cf. Rom 7.9).  Izzy wrote:  Agreed. 
 Bill and Izzy, how do you deal with the subject matter of Romans 
5? The  following passage seems to indicate that an advserse 
sentence of  condemnation is passed upon all men by the offense of one 
man:  Romans 5:18 (18) Therefore as by the offence of 
one judgment came upon all men to  condemnation  Several 
verses earlier, Paul was using the observation of death reigning  over 
men from Adam to Moses as evidence of this condemnation:  Romans 
5:14 (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
that had  not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
transgression  The concepts Paul teaches here appear 
contradictory to your perceptions. 
I think you mis-perceive my perception. :) This 
is where I find disagreement with Izzy and you, I believe, if I correctly 
remember your position. Were it not for their inclusion in Christ, by way of his 
atoning representation of them, young children (along with all humanity), would 
remain under the condemnation of Adam's offense, and should they die, they would 
die under the judgment of that same offence.Hence, I wrote to Izzy that I 
had great difficulty thinking of them as "innocent": Were it not for Christ, 
their guilt in Adam would condemn them, even before they have 
"sinned"(Paul touches on the same thingin verse 14, although in 2Cor 
5.19 he clarifies that God did not impute their trespasses to them).BUT 
this is not the rest of the story.Verse 18 goes on tostate: "even so 
through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all [humans], resulting in 
justification of life."Young children are included in Christ's 
recapitulation of humanityand remain so until they refuse him and 
therefore that justification of life. Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon 
Izzy disagreed,arguing instead that they don't need to be saved because 
they have not sinned. If I remember you correctly, I think you take a similar 
position.

Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Good stuff, David.

- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

 Gary wrote:
  how does tolerance factor into your
  world view? E.g., is tolerance global
  or is it of certain people?

 Tolerance is global.  God is our example in this.  If God were intolerant,
 he would have wiped out the world long ago.  Instead, we find him to be
very
 patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity.  He does not
 condone the wicked.  He constantly speaks to them concerning their need to
 repent and do what is right.  However, he seeks for a voluntary
 understanding and submission, not one that is appropriated by force.
There
 are many other factors involved, however, and sometimes we see him come
down
 hard as an object lesson to the rest of us (e.g., I'm thinking right now
of
 Ananias and Sapphira).

 Gary wrote:
  is love associated as closely with tolerance
  as it is with unity?

 Yes.

 Religious groups generally tend to be intolerant.  This is human nature,
not
 God's nature.  This is why we have different sects.  People congregate
 around commonly shared beliefs and shun those who do not receive the same.
 Such is the root of denominationalism, and extreme sects which severely
cut
 off others are considered cults.  An example of this would be the attitude
 of Jews not to fellowship with Gentiles, or of males separating from
females
 in the meetings, or separating from others because of dietary
restrictions,
 or separating because of doctrinal disagreements of the Godhead, the
 Trinity, modes of baptism, the need for holiness, grace, etc.  Even when
the
 base of the separation is a truth, if it leads to unloving behavior
between
 individuals, it is wrong.

 Concerning the community of believers, the local church, I really see only
 one thing which we are to be intolerant about.  We are to be intolerant of
 sin, which is defined as any action that does not have love as its source.
 This is because fellowship is adversely affected by the sin of even one
 person.  There is no room for sin in the body of Christ.

 Regarding the word tolerance, I should perhaps make it clear that
tolerance
 does not mean that we think certain viewpoints are free to be shared
 unchallenged.  It means that we allow views to be shared, and we readily
 challenge false views, and admonish one another to change views that are
 contrary to truth.  Tolerance should give freedom to the expression of
 viewpoints, but it does not give a license for anyone to embrace
falsehoods.

 An example:  as a parent, suppose my child comes home from school and she
 tells me that she doesn't believe in God anymore because she learned in
 school that evolution through natural laws explains our existence.  If I
was
 intolerant, perhaps I would yell at her and send her to her room without
 supper until she apologized to me for articulating such terrible ideas.
On
 the other hand, if I am tolerant, I would simply take time to instruct her
 properly about problems in her viewpoint and show her many good reasons to
 continue believing in God.  In fact, I would probably do it in a loving
and
 cheerful way while we were having supper together.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

2005-02-09 Thread ShieldsFamily











These passages challenge my way of 

thinking on this, and they appear to be problematic to what you two
have 

just agreed upon. Please consider them carefully and offer an anwer if
you 

can. I am very interested.



Peace be with you.

David Miller. 



David, I see orginal sin as
the inherited sin nature. I believe that you have stated in the past that God
judges us for our committed sins. (Not for our inherited sin-tendency.) A
newborn infant has committed no sin. Whenever he reaches the age of
accountability/understanding/conscience then he can (and does) sin. Until then
he is just doing whatever he has been conditioned to do by those around him. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior




John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 
are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how 
to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. 
Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church 
-- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows 
full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has 
no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very 
clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has 
been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be 
honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on 
this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in 
Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying 
the character of Christ in these matters. 

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an 
apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat 
with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through which 
to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to understand 
what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :) That course 
can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if you are 
interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have 
much in common with David's response tog, concerning 
tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's 
economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:18 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult 
  behavior
  In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Unity with error is subversion to GodCommunity with error is 
Complicity with errorGod has commanded that we identify and avoid or 
separate from errorA recent example of complicity, is the president 
of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving  being 
decievedHe is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialogYet he is 
being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS 
IS to validate themselves.His basis for acceptance and reference for 
doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth 
an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw At the 
same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby 
distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit 
of the blessed peace of Evangelical support A number of LDS media have 
quoted Mouw for supportThere is no unity apart from 
  "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle manifest 
  in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a comprehensive 
  doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said "proof") that unity is 
  not based on creedal concepts. Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two 
  passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get 
  along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw 
  is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church 
  -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He 
  knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. 
  He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has 
  been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the 
  Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable 
  beginnings. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church 
  remains in spite of skewed ideas and differing expressions of faith. If 
  the Miller Four cannot arrive at a doctrinally agreeable listing 
  -- it is little wonder that no else can either. 
  The fact of the matter is this --- we are 
  individually servants of a Another. The vegetarian and the holy 
  day brother in Romans 14 WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you only 
  substitute your truth for the biblical message when you (and I mean "anyone") 
  respond by arguing that meats and special days were not "important" doctrines 
  of the day. Romans 14 gives us the inspired reason for 
  accepting others as they stand in faith with Christ. And I Cor 13 
  gives us sign posts as we move to align our attitude with Christ's in dealing 
  with disagreements. Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my 
  book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of 
  fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. 
  Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of 
  Christ in these matters. 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Bill Taylor wrote:
 Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation
 of humanity and remain so until they refuse him and
 therefore that justification of life.

One argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the 
observation of death.  I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, 
and resurrection in regards to humans being born into death.  Those who are 
born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did 
prior to Christ's incarnation.  Do you see it differently?

Bill Taylor wrote:
 Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon
 Izzy disagreed, arguing instead that they don't
 need to be saved because they have not sinned.
 If I remember you correctly, I think you take a
 similar position.

No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do not need to be saved 
because they have not sinned.  I admit that I have trouble seeing how guilt 
would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 18 supports this 
view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death and are in a 
state that is separated from God.  There are questions about all of this 
that I am still trying to work out in my mind.  The Augustinian tradition 
seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt.  I suppose I tend toward 
that perspective.  There also appears to be different kinds of condemnation, 
the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority over us 
(hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 
third and fourth geneartion) versus the condemnation for sin committed in 
ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed wilfully and 
obstinately.

If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any condemnation due 
to those who commit sins in ignorance.  If I am hearing you wrong on this, 
please clarify.  Thanks.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

2005-02-09 Thread ShieldsFamily









Great answer, David. I tend to only think
of the politically correct definition of tolerant (meaning put up
with whatever depravity is politically correct.) I'm tired of having that word
shoved in my face. Also discrimination meaning the same thing: You
dont tolerate sin. Izzy



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:46 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior



Gary
wrote:

 how does tolerance factor into your

 world view? E.g., is tolerance global

 or is it of certain people?



Tolerance is global. God is our example in this. If God were
intolerant, 

he would have wiped out the world long ago. Instead, we find him to be
very 

patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity. He does not 

condone the wicked. He constantly speaks to them concerning their need
to 

repent and do what is right. However, he seeks for a voluntary 

understanding and submission, not one that is appropriated by force.
There 

are many other factors involved, however, and sometimes we see him come
down 

hard as an object lesson to the rest of us (e.g., I'm thinking right
now of 

Ananias and Sapphira).



Gary
wrote:

 is love associated as closely with tolerance

 as it is with unity?



Yes.



Religious groups generally tend to be intolerant. This is human
nature, not 

God's nature. This is why we have different sects. People congregate 

around commonly shared beliefs and shun those who do not receive the
same. 

Such is the root of denominationalism, and extreme sects which severely
cut 

off others are considered cults. An example of this would be the
attitude 

of Jews not to fellowship with Gentiles, or of males separating from
females 

in the meetings, or separating from others because of dietary
restrictions, 

or separating because of doctrinal disagreements of the Godhead, the 

Trinity, modes of baptism, the need for holiness, grace, etc. Even
when the 

base of the separation is a truth, if it leads to unloving behavior
between 

individuals, it is wrong.



Concerning the community of believers, the local church, I really see
only 

one thing which we are to be intolerant about. We are to be intolerant
of 

sin, which is defined as any action that does not have love as its
source. 

This is because fellowship is adversely affected by the sin of even one


person. There is no room for sin in the body of Christ.



Regarding the word tolerance, I should perhaps make it clear that
tolerance 

does not mean that we think certain viewpoints are free to be shared 

unchallenged. It means that we allow views to be shared, and we
readily 

challenge false views, and admonish one another to change views that
are 

contrary to truth. Tolerance should give freedom to the _expression_ of 

viewpoints, but it does not give a license for anyone to embrace
falsehoods.



An example: as a parent, suppose my child comes home from school and
she 

tells me that she doesn't believe in God anymore because she learned in


school that evolution through natural laws explains our existence. If
I was 

intolerant, perhaps I would yell at her and send her to her room
without 

supper until she apologized to me for articulating such terrible
ideas. On 

the other hand, if I am tolerant, I would simply take time to instruct
her 

properly about problems in her viewpoint and show her many good reasons
to 

continue believing in God. In fact, I would probably do it in a loving
and 

cheerful way while we were having supper together.



Peace be with you.

David Miller. 





--

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org



If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.

re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




It may not bother y'all to read all my spelling 
mistakes (thank you for being sogracious),but it bothers me very 
much when I make them-- so, as a form of penitence, I have corrected some 
mistakes below:

Thanks,

Bill

- Original Message -From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:43 
AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original SinBill 
Taylor wrote:Young children are included in Christ's recapitulation of 
humanity and remain so until they refuse him and therefore 
thatjustification of life.David responds  One 
argument that Paul makes for the continuing condemnation is the observation of 
death. I don't see any change after Christ's death, burial, and 
resurrection in regards to humans being born into death. Those who are 
born appear to continue to be born into death in the same way that they did 
prior to Christ's incarnation. Do you see it 
differently?Yes, David: as long as God is patient, not willing 
that any should perish but come to repentance, humans will continue to die for 
the same reason that Adam died after he sinned: they will remain removed from 
the tree of life, lest they eat of it and live forever under the conditions of 
the fall. (See below for more comments on this)Bill Taylor 
wrote:Hence I wrote: they are saved, whereupon Izzy disagreed, arguing 
instead that they don't need to be saved because they have not sinned. If I 
remember you correctly, I think you take a similar position.David 
responds  No, I'm not comfortable with the idea that infants do 
not need to be saved because they have not sinned. I admit that I have 
trouble seeing how guilt would be imputed to someone who has not sinned (Ezek. 
18 supports this view), but it seems to me that they are still born into death 
and are in a state that is separated from God. There are questions about 
all of this that I am still trying to work out in my mind. The Augustinian 
tradition seems to delineate two different kinds of guilt. I suppose I 
tend towardthat perspective. There also appears to be different kinds 
of condemnation, the condemnation that comes from the sin of those in authority 
over us (hence, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 
third and fourth generation) versus the condemnation for sin committed in 
ignorance versus the condemnation for sin committed willfully and 
obstinately.If I am hearing you right, I think you do not perceive any 
condemnation due to those who commit sins in ignorance. If I am hearing 
you wrong on this, please clarify. Thanks.David


David,
I do very much think thatall Christians 
today need to be very diligent in thinking themselves through the influence of 
Augustine on their anthological interpretations. He has had a colossal impact on 
our thinking in this area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
to agree with him, which is their prerogative. My suspicion, however, is that 
most are unaware of his influence on their theological perspectives and will 
want to adjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through his 
theology, and realized the influence of Manicheaism on his thought 
processes.To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about 
this in the terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the 
meaning of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation 
is as I stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from 
the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity. Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
think, hm. I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward 
sin, Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. But in his 
victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification of ALL life 
(which is why God in his forbearance did not "impute" their trespasses to them), 
including life after death, which will be granted to deceased children via their 
inclusion in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like to look into this a bit 
further before being any more 
specific.Bill

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent 
inthinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on 
theiranthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our 
thinking inthis area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
to agreewith him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is that 
most areunaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and will 
want toadjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves through 
histheology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his thought 
processes.

jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel 
his way into "everyone's"
thinking when he's been dead for so long?

To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
termsyou are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
of"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as 
Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the 
treeof life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity.

jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in (a 
state of) iniquity
my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am 
sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl)
Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
think,hm. 

jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I respectfully 
disagree. The iniquities
(generational curses) come downthrough the 
Fathers and those who spoke
prophetically over him at the temple when he was an 
infant along with the
angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all referred 
to Him as "that 
holy thing"

I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward 
sin,Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. 

jt: Jesus could have sinned without having to have had 
a "propensity" for it
The first Adam chose to do it without any 
propensity.

But in his victorious resurrection Christ became the merciful justification 
of ALL life(which is why God in his forebearance did not "impute" their 
trespasses to them), 
including life after death, which will be granted to deceased children via 
their inclusion 
in him. Anyway, if you don't mind I would like to look into this a bit 
further before 
being any more specific. Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

  From: "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  I do very much think that every Christian today needs to be very diligent 
  inthinking themselves through the influence of Augustine on 
  theiranthropolical interpretions. He has had a collosal impact on our 
  thinking inthis area. Perhaps when they have done that, they will continue 
  to agreewith him, which is their perogative. My suspision, however, is 
  that most areunaware of his ifluence on their theological perspectives and 
  will want toadjust their thinking, once they have worked themselves 
  through histheology, and realized the influence of Manichaesm on his 
  thought processes.

  jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he 
  weasel his way into "everyone's"
  thinking when he's been dead for so 
long?

  BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be 
  influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you 
  "heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone 
  else, didn't they? Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the source 
  of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think you go to 
  the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of other 
  Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to disagree: Is 
  it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? The truth is, you bring things with 
  you to your study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your 
  conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and 
  gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. It is 
  his business as to why he doesn't bring wellmeaning Christians to consensus on 
  every theological point, but he does not, and he does not tell us why this is 
  so.

  Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's 
  thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous 
  occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical text. 
  It is a technical term that you read into the text in your study of Scripture, 
  as it pertains to the human condition. If it is a correct theological term, in 
  that it is an accurate conclusion, you have Augustine to thank for this: it is 
  his term, which you areemploying now as if it were a true biblical 
  concept. I happen to think it comes to us as a result of the dualism he 
  operated under, because of the Manichaeism in his past.

  As I said before, you may read Augustine and find 
  that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if 
  you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover thatmuch of 
  what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in 
  Augustine's arguments.

  To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
  termsyou are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
  of"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is 
  as Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from 
  the treeof life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
  humanity.

  jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in 
  (a state of) iniquity
  my mother was sinful who conceived me (and I too, am 
  sinful) (Ps 51:5 Ampl)

  BT: Yes, indeed he does. And our same Bible also says 
  that from the fruit (and think in terms of the sperm) of his genitals, Jesus 
  would be born (through Mary, of course; see Acts 2.30). Why do you also deny 
  below that Jesus was born under the same propensities as David, from his 
  fathers back to Adam?
  Jesus himself was born under the judgment of that condemnation -- I 
  think,hm. 

  jt: I'd give this a lot of thought Bill. I 
  respectfully disagree. The iniquities
  (generational curses) come downthrough the 
  Fathers and those who spoke
  prophetically over him at the temple when he was an 
  infant along with the
  angel who spoke with Mary before His birth all 
  referred to Him as "that 
  holy thing"

  BT: This conclusionreflects upon your deficient 
  understanding of the word "holy." Holy is first and formost a term which 
  speaks to the quality of the relationship within the Godhead, the mutual 
  indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is what is in view in the 
  above mentioned statements. What I am saying pertaining to "the judgment of 
  that condemnation" is that, being human, Jesus to was born under the sentence 
  of death, and this in part (at least) because of the post-lapsarian (which 
  means after the fall) exclusion of humans from the tree of life.

  I also think that all humans are born with a propensity toward 
  sin,Jesus included, which is another result of Adam's offence. 

  jt: Jesus could have

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

I don't preach tolerance of error like you do NA[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:56:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE are the most Intolerant people.Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when they read this statement from the master of bullhorn evangelism? JD 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

[TruthTalk] Historical Influences

*note Subject change
Subject was Original Sin and is now Historical Influences

Judy wrote:
 I've never ever read Augustine. How does
 he weasel his way into everyone's thinking
 when he's been dead for so long?

This is a good question, Judy.  I think those who lack an understanding of 
the answer to this question tend to have a lot of trouble understanding the 
comments of those who study history.

Augustine continues to have an influence because people continue to read him 
and appreciate him.  He was quoted profusely by the Reformers like Calvin 
and Luther.  In turn, the educational systems continue to base their 
framework of understanding partly on him.  You may never had read him 
personally, but there is little doubt that you have read ideas from those 
who have read him, or at least read something down the line from someone who 
had read him.

In the same way, we Christians hold views that were not only influenced by 
other Christians like Augustine, but also Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. 
It might be said that Plato is a pillar of Christian thought the way 
Aristotle is a pillar of scientific thought.  Now many Christians have not 
read Plato and many scientists have not read Aristotle, but when historians 
and philosophers read these guys, they can observe that many systems of 
thought are ultimately derived from their writings.  Needless to say, the 
works of all of these guys are still in print, indicating a demand from 
scholars to read their works.

I would like to point out one thing that very much illustrates historical 
influences upon thought.  If you ask the average person in the United States 
what the oldest church is, most people will probably answer that it is the 
Roman Catholic Church.  If you ask them what church traces its roots all the 
way back to the first century, again, many will answer that it is the Roman 
Catholic Church.  Now those who answer this way have probably never really 
read the history books in order to have this perception. It is simply passed 
on to them by word of mouth.  When one does study history and is objective 
enough to consider historical sources not just from the West and the Roman 
Catholic Church, but also the historical records of the Eastern Churches, 
the oldest churches such as the Antioch church or the Jerusalem church, a 
different picture emerges.  Roman Catholicism did not really exist as its 
own sect until 1054.  Now if you read the historical writings of the Roman 
Catholic Church, they trace their popes all the way back to the apostle 
Peter of the first century.  The problem is that their history is slanted. 
They present it in a way that gives them historical credibility and 
authority.

If you consult the history books of the East, the picture is much different. 
Over hundreds of years, the Roman Bishop was slowly given a supremacy over 
the other bishops of the church.  The reason for this had to do with the 
rule of the Roman empire.  For awhile this was accepted, but schisms flared 
from time to time until in 1054, there was a final split in which the Roman 
Catholic Church split from the churches of the East and declared themselves 
the true church.

If you ask someone in the Eastern Orthodox Church what the oldest church is, 
he will immediately say it is the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Why is it that 
most in the West do not have this perception.  Well, a historian readily 
knows that all of our educational systems were originally founded by Roman 
Catholics.  Although most are currently very secular, they were founded 
originally by the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore, the things taught in 
school over the next several hundreds of years are tainted by this 
historical foundation.  Even if a person went to a private Protestant 
school, knowledge is always passed on from a basis in history, and so the 
concept that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest church simply permeates 
the minds of our society, even though most have probably never really 
studied the history of it in order to make an informed decision.  They 
simply parrot what is popularly disseminated and seems to make sense to 
them.

Judy, have you ever taken a history or philosophy class at the university 
level?  I'm just curious, if you don't mind sharing.  If you haven't, I may 
try and take some time to explain some things that might help you to 
understand how what we do today and how we think has a foundation in 
history.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Are you saying we are to be tolerant of false Doctrine?
Why did David say he hates every False Way?
Should we love wolves come into the Church to devour?
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary wrote: how does tolerance factor into your world view? E.g., is tolerance global or is it of certain people?Tolerance is global. God is our example in this. If God were intolerant, he would have wiped out the world long ago. Instead, we find him to be very patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity. He does not condone the wicked. He constantly speaks to them concerning their need to repent and do what is right. However, he seeks for a voluntary understanding and submission, not one that is appropriated by force. There are many other factors involved, however, and sometimes we see him come down hard as an object lesson to the rest of us (e.g., I'm thinking right now of Ananias and Sapphira).Gary wrote: is love associated as closely with tolerance as it is with
unity?Yes.Religious groups generally tend to be intolerant. This is human nature, not God's nature. This is why we have different sects. People congregate around commonly shared beliefs and shun those who do not receive the same. Such is the root of denominationalism, and extreme sects which severely cut off others are considered cults. An example of this would be the attitude of Jews not to fellowship with Gentiles, or of males separating from females in the meetings, or separating from others because of dietary restrictions, or separating because of doctrinal disagreements of the Godhead, the Trinity, modes of baptism, the need for holiness, grace, etc. Even when the base of the separation is a truth, if it leads to unloving behavior between individuals, it is wrong.Concerning the community of believers, the local church, I really see only one thing which we are to be intolerant about. We are to be intolerant of
sin, which is defined as any action that does not have love as its source. This is because fellowship is adversely affected by the sin of even one person. There is no room for sin in the body of Christ.Regarding the word tolerance, I should perhaps make it clear that tolerance does not mean that we think certain viewpoints are free to be shared unchallenged. It means that we allow views to be shared, and we readily challenge false views, and admonish one another to change views that are contrary to truth. Tolerance should give freedom to the _expression_ of viewpoints, but it does not give a license for anyone to embrace falsehoods.An example: as a parent, suppose my child comes home from school and she tells me that she doesn't believe in God anymore because she learned in school that evolution through natural laws explains our existence. If I was intolerant, perhaps I would yell at her and send her to her room without
supper until she apologized to me for articulating such terrible ideas. On the other hand, if I am tolerant, I would simply take time to instruct her properly about problems in her viewpoint and show her many good reasons to continue believing in God. In fact, I would probably do it in a loving and cheerful way while we were having supper together.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Even many of the Evangelicals have called on him to Repent of sin in that he bore False WitnessBill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.
 

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :) That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response tog, concerning tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unity with error is subversion to GodCommunity with error is Complicity with errorGod has commanded that we identify and avoid or separate from errorA recent example of complicity, is the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving  being decievedHe is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialogYet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.His basis for acceptance and reference for doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw At the same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of Evangelical support A number of LDS media have quoted
 Mouw for supportThere is no unity apart from "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle manifest in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a comprehensive doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said "proof") that unity is not based on creedal concepts. Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. More than one
 fellowship within the Larger Church remains in spite of skewed ideas and differing expressions of faith. If the Miller Four cannot arrive at a doctrinally agreeable listing -- it is little wonder that no else can either. The fact of the matter is this --- we are individually servants of a Another. The vegetarian and the holy day brother in Romans 14 WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you only substitute your truth for the biblical message when you (and I mean "anyone") respond by arguing that meats and special days were not "important" doctrines of the day. Romans 14 gives us the inspired reason for accepting others as they stand in faith with Christ. And I Cor 13 gives us sign posts as we move to align our attitude with Christ's in dealing with disagreements. Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue
 on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters. JD__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Kevin wrote:
 Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE
 are the most Intolerant people.

John wrote:
 Be honest , now.   Did anyone else smile when
 they read this statement from the master of
 bullhorn evangelism?

Sorry, but I didn't smile.  Kevin is right.  Kevin is very consistent in 
that he teaches we should be intolerant.  That is why he gives the Mormons a 
hard time.  Yet, Kevin is not as intolerant as the sodomites who preach 
tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance, hatred and 
violence when someone opposes their agenda.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior




Yes, and I think some of themhave caved in 
under the pressure of their"peers"; others are more like you and will 
never accept his approach to reconciliation. As Evangelicals, we will each need 
to decide where we are atin that continuum.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 1:28 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult 
  behavior
  
  Even many of the Evangelicals have called on him to Repent of sin in that 
  he bore False WitnessBill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  



John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 
13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing 
us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal 
disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian 
response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these 
present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak 
for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising 
what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. 
More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite 
of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my 
book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue 
of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. 
Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of 
Christ in these matters. 

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an 
apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat 
with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through 
which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to 
understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it 
:) That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological 
Seminary, if you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really 
good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to 
have much in common with David's response tog, concerning 
tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's 
economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 
  7:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult 
  behavior
  In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Unity with error is subversion to GodCommunity with 
error is Complicity with errorGod has commanded that we identify and 
avoid or separate from errorA recent example of complicity, is 
the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving 
 being decievedHe is trying to build bridges to LDS thru 
dialogYet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be 
accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.His basis for 
acceptance and reference for doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU 
Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which 
soundfs good to Mouw At the same time the GA's write off 
Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his 
unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of 
Evangelical support A number of LDS media have quoted Mouw for 
supportThere is no unity apart from 
  "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle 
  manifest in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a 
  comprehensive doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said 
  "proof") that unity is not based on creedal concepts. Romans 
  14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express 
  purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and 
  personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true 
  Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and 
  with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he 
  does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention 
  of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on 
  that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has 
  been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. More than 
  one fellowship within the Larger Church remains in spite of skewed ideas 
  and differing expressions of faith. If the Miller Four cannot arrive 
  at a doctrinally agreeable listing -- it is little wonder that 
  no else can either. The fact of the matter is 
  this --- we are individually servants of a 
  Another. The vegetarian and the holy day brother in Romans 14 
  WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you

Re: [TruthTalk] Ben Stein's Final Column

2005-02-09 Thread michael douglas

MD: Stunning, Izzy, just stunning. ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:









About real heroes/values:






Subject: Ben Stein's final column




 For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column for the online website called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life. Reading his final column is worth a few minutes of your time.



How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing thiscolumn for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writingthis column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few
 days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood starsare terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role
 model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a roadnorth of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off
 and killed him.A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolatein California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.We put
 couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay butstand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who havebeen in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for
 autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a realhero.We are not responsible for the operation of the universe, and what happens to us is not terribly important. God is real, not a fiction; and when we turn over our lives to Him, He takes far better care of us than we could ever do for ourselves. In a word, we make ourselves sane when we fire ourselves as the directors of the movie of our lives and turn the power overto Him.I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Actually they say Mouw recieved a good amount of Filthy Lucre
There is no reconciliation until the LDSare in Christ.
Just another Failed movement Like ECT Evang Catholics Togaether now we have EMT next is Evang's and Muslims together why not E Satanists together they need reconciliation too.
Nobody put pressure on those speaking out read there web pages about it they are Livid about it
Calling on him to repent,you should too.
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Yes, and I think some of themhave caved in under the pressure of their"peers"; others are more like you and will never accept his approach to reconciliation. As Evangelicals, we will each need to decide where we are atin that continuum.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Even many of the Evangelicals have called on him to Repent of sin in that he bore False WitnessBill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 




John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.
 

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :) That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response tog, concerning tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unity with error is subversion to GodCommunity with error is Complicity with errorGod has commanded that we identify and avoid or separate from errorA recent example of complicity, is the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving  being decievedHe is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialogYet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.His basis for acceptance and reference for doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw At the same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of Evangelical support A number of LDS media have quoted
 Mouw for supportThere is no unity apart from "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle manifest in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a comprehensive doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said "proof") that unity is not based on creedal concepts. Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. More than one
 fellowship within the Larger Church remains in spite of skewed ideas and differing expressions of faith. If the Miller Four cannot arrive at a doctrinally agreeable listing -- it is little wonder that no else can either. The fact of the matter is this --- we are individually servants of a Another. The vegetarian and the holy day brother in Romans 14 WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you only substitute your truth for the biblical message when you (and I mean

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Ps 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Actuallythe real point is the Hypocrisy ofthose that call for tolerance; then not being tolerant. As I do not call for Tolerance I do not fit that category like some of you on TT.
For instance where is your Tolerance for those on TT that commit all manner of vitriolic speech, you mock smear and then gossipwhen they get offline?
You criticize the behavior you youselvespractice more than any others on TT.
That is called Hypocrisy, can't stand the "miller four" and SPEAK up about that but have no problem with mixing with False Teachers maybe cause that is your crowd. You are the educated ones who look down on the poor knaves of TT If they were only are smart as you which is may I add debatable. You are as the Bible says, Heady Highminded, prideful, arrogant and haughty. You like to consider yourself smooth gentlemanly Christians but when you get your toes stepped on they we see your true colors. Your froward mouths caught in sin can not ceasefrom berating belittling long after those you slam have left TTor dropped the issue.
All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

When you guys get your hearts regenerated then maybe you will play like nice boys.

Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Did I hear you say you came out of the cambellite cult?
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin wrote: Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE are the most Intolerant people.John wrote: Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when they read this statement from the master of bullhorn evangelism?Sorry, but I didn't smile. Kevin is right. Kevin is very consistent in that he teaches we should be intolerant. That is why he gives the Mormons a hard time. Yet, Kevin is not as intolerant as the sodomites who preach tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance, hatred and violence when someone opposes their agenda.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf 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.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

I am not interested in my disagreement with Mouw. I have none. I believe the Lord does and mouw will have hell to pay for his conspiracy Against God and his friendship with the world. Who will stand up for God's viewagainst idolaters? Surely not Mouw he wants to build bridges with the Baal worshippers!
James 4:4 whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.
 

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :) That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response tog, concerning tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior
In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:52:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unity with error is subversion to GodCommunity with error is Complicity with errorGod has commanded that we identify and avoid or separate from errorA recent example of complicity, is the president of Fuller Mouw which waxes worse worse decieving  being decievedHe is trying to build bridges to LDS thru dialogYet he is being used by the LDS who desparately want to be accepted as Christians AS IS to validate themselves.His basis for acceptance and reference for doctrinal beliefs is Stephen Robinson a BYU Professor. Robinson puts forth an "unorthodox" LDS theology which soundfs good to Mouw At the same time the GA's write off Robinson as Liberal intellectuals thereby distancing themselves from his unathorized Theology but gaining the benefit of the blessed peace of Evangelical support A number of LDS media have quoted
 Mouw for supportThere is no unity apart from "error." The recent and not subtle Miller Four debackle manifest in their inability to agree (even among themselves) on a comprehensive doctrinal listing is,yet, another proof (yes, I said "proof") that unity is not based on creedal concepts. Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. More than one
 fellowship within the Larger Church remains in spite of skewed ideas and differing expressions of faith. If the Miller Four cannot arrive at a doctrinally agreeable listing -- it is little wonder that no else can either. The fact of the matter is this --- we are individually servants of a Another. The vegetarian and the holy day brother in Romans 14 WERE DOCTRINALLY WRONG - and you only substitute your truth for the biblical message when you (and I mean "anyone") respond by arguing that meats and special days were not "important" doctrines of the day. Romans 14 gives us the inspired reason for accepting others as they stand in faith with Christ. And I Cor 13 gives us sign posts as we move to align our attitude with Christ's in dealing with disagreements. Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue
 on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin






On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:56:15 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he 
  weasel his way into "everyone's" thinking when he's 
  been dead for so long?
  

BT: You did not need to read Augustine, Judy, to be 
influenced by his thought. I know this is a real hang up for you, but you 
"heard" the gospel from someone didn't you? And they heard it from someone 
else, didn't they? 

jt: Depends what you mean by gospel. The first time 
I heard that I needed to come to Jesus was at a Billy Graham rally and I 
came fwd but it took another 17yrs for me to take that commitment seriously 
and this was when I began to study the scriptures for myself.

Well, take that back to Augustine and you have the 
source of several (I'll be kind to you) of your beliefs. I know you think 
you go to the Scriptures with just you and the Spirit, but so do a lot of 
other Christians -- yet I'll bet you'll all find things upon which to 
disagree: Is it the Holy Spirit who is confusing you? 

jt: Do I agree with the scriptures or the "other 
Christians" who go to them? The Holy Spirit is not confused and He is 
the one we should depend upon to lead us into All truth. I can only speak 
for myself, I don't know what other Christians are up to.

The truth is, you bring things with you to your 
study of Scripture, just as everyone else does, and you draw your 
conclusions through that grid. Sometimes the Holy Spirit breaks through and 
gets to you and corrects your assumptions, and sometimes he does not. 


jt: I know you won't believe this Bill but I had no 
assumptions before I began sitting under certain teachers.
Being a Medical Transcriptionist by profession I am 
able to take good notes and I began to see a lot of contradictions. 
This was also true in some books, the onesthat had to do with 
explaining what the scriptures were saying - so I layed them all aside and 
started over and this is when the scriptures really began to open up and 
speak to me.

It is his business as to why he doesn't bring well 
meaning Christians to consensus on every theological point, but he does not, 
and he does not tell us why this is so.

jt: I know why this is so Bill. It is because His 
hands are tied. When we look to men rather than to God we are open to 
every wind of doctrine and doctrines of men take the heart captive and blind 
the eyes. They also cause division.

Allow me to give you an example of Augustine's 
thought upon your own theology: I have pointed out to you on numerous 
occasions that the words "spiritual death" do not appear in the biblical 
text. 

jt: Those exact words may not 
be there but the concept is because Adam died the day he ate the fruit from 
the wrong tree and we know that he didn't die physically. Why do you 
have such a difficult time with this? What is "life and death are in 
the power of the tongue" talking about? - physical or spiritual 
death. 

It is a technical term that you read into the text 
in your study of Scripture, as it pertains to the human condition. If it is 
a correct theological term, in that it is an accurate conclusion, you have 
Augustine to thank for this: it is his term, which you areemploying 
now as if it were a true biblical concept. I happen to think it comes to us 
as a result of the dualism he operated under, because of the Manichaeism in 
his past.

jt: I don't know about Augustine and his 
Manichaestic dualism but that's not where I'm at. I believe God man man a 
triune being. God is Spirit and being made in His image we are also 
primarily spirit beings who have a soul and who live in a body. So you see 
my beliefs are not patterned after those of Augustine.

As I said before, you may read Augustine and find 
that you agree with him -- I'm sure you would on certain points; however, if 
you were honest in your inquiry, you would also discover thatmuch of 
what you consider to be very biblical finds its roots right there in 
Augustine's arguments.

jt: Why can't I be honest with God's Word? I 
don't need Augustine as a mediator. IMO this is the problem. We can 
not discuss or fellowship around God's Word alone. Why is 
that?

To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the 
terms you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning 
of "condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as 
Istated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from 
the tree of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all 
humanity.

jt: King David wrote "Behold I was brought forth in 
(a state of)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Are you familiar with the Doctrine of separation? Surely you must be David. I find that there is a clear COMMAND for Christians to avoid those that are in sin but also those that are in darkness. It is not a personal vendetta. It is a matter of purity. First to God's commands, and second to oneself. of course God does not want anyone to perish and he does not force anyone to believe. I think you are focused on the wrong thing. You are focused on mans relation to man. Separation has to do with zeal for the name of the Lord. It has to do with being a pure people.God wants His people to be a Pure people on the inward (sin vs holiness) the outward. Even the appearance of evil, He never once allowed His people to associate with those outside of His Covenant Relationship. Polluted by the world and by association with it.
What is wrong with a little zeal righteous indignation at those that do evil in the sight of the Lord? The example of men throughout the OT shows us that God blessed those that stood for God His Righteousness

Nehemiah 13 And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff to Tobiah out of the chamber.
That must have been a sight! Did he do wrong? Why did it grieve him? Not a personal vendeta but a zeal for the purity of God's House, cause him to be Grieved Sore! How about Christ Driving the money changers out not exactly Tolerant that I can see.God is lonsuffering but just because sentence against evil is not executed swiftly, does not mean God is tolerant. Longsuffering yes, tolerant no. If you sin you will pay one way or another, God does not wink at it. God is not Tolerant of Heresy, never has been!
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest... heresies, ... they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God
Back to nehemiah, All this for mixing with heathen? And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.
And how about Ezra who repented for affinity with the heathen Ezra 9:14 Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations?

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands
Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God
Many may think there is No difference But God sees a big difference between the Holy Profane That difference IS separation from every evil way
Ez 22 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
By joining in affinity fellowship with Mormons Mouw has profaned the Holiness of the Lord, and shown himself a profane man.
The question is whether we should obey God or man.
Is this optional? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them
- Original Message -From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:45 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior Gary wrote: how does tolerance factor into your world view? E.g., is tolerance global or is it of certain people? Tolerance is global. God is our example in this. If God were intolerant, he would have wiped out the world long ago. Instead, we find him to bevery patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity. He does not condone the wicked. He constantly speaks to them concerning their need to repent and do what is right. However, he seeks for a voluntary understanding and submission, not one that is appropriated by force.There are many other factors
involved, however, and sometimes we see him comedown hard as an object lesson to the rest of us (e.g., I'm thinking right nowof Ananias and Sapphira). Gary wrote: is love associated as closely with tolerance as it is with unity? Yes. Religious groups generally tend to be intolerant. This is human nature,not God's nature. This is why we have different sects. People congregate around commonly shared beliefs and shun those who do not receive the same. Such is the root of denominationalism, and extreme sects which severelycut off others are considered cults. An example of this would be the attitude of Jews not to fellowship with Gentiles, or of males separating fromfemales in the meetings, or separating from others because of

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

BILL says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14 1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

BILL says What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other Authority you look to?

BILL says He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

Bill says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings
KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them

KD Paul at Athens?
Did Paul get a booth at the market to build bridges with them?
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. KD Was he grieved sore? What meaneth "spirit stirred in him"?
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews
Are you saying "disputed" in the Word of God should have been translated Dialoged?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said
so he stands in the midst of a hill and says? Could this have been preaching verses 22 tru 31 sure sounds like a sermon to me.
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Thats the way to dialog, tell them they are IGNORANT Paul!
How about at:
Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
Thessalonica set all the city on an uproar
Ephesus, whole city was filled with confusion
Why did paul sayMiletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church ...
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore WATCH not Sleep, WATCH not Dialog.
Disputing Preaching, calling names,Much Contention, uproars, confusion a far cry from DiaLOGing!
I think you better check your Bible version to see if this is what it says.
BILLsays Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship.
KD says NO Fellowship with evil Millions are in Hell right now probably looking for Joe.
Mouw has given his assent to the LDS they love it they talk about it, even DaveH has brought it up. It did not alert them at all to their precarious state but instead grants authority to them being OK Every Mormon walked out of the Tabernacle Just as LOST as they walked in, what a lost opportunity. Some of the words used actually were turned around to the Mormonspeak version to actually confirm Mormine doctrine such as we will be married in heaven. This occured because of poor understanding on the speakers part. And if you are getting a LARGE sum of Money you would not say anything upsetting. Maybe he should have started out like Paul "YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP"!

Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

John wrote Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 8:45:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response to g, concerning tolerance and its right place in the church and our Lord's economy. 
 


Me and David on the same page  Seriously, I am enjoying the comments of you both (Taylor and Miller) on this most recent subject. Regarding Dr Mouw -- I have read several articles written by him concerning his efforts with the Mormon Church --- absolutely nothing in those articles was worthy of reproach. The only way a church or religion can remain truly separate and apart is to act that way. If and when the Mormons let down their guard, so to speak -- the moment they become open to meaningful dialogue, that is the time when God will work His will on all parties involved in the dialogue. it may take 20 years or 100 -- but it will happen. God is always working His ministry of reconciliation -- that is why He has invited us to participate. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:21:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To be truthful with you, David, I have not thought about this in the terms
you are drawing to my attention. I will want to look into the meaning of
"condemnation" in the context it is used here. If that condemnation is as I
stated above, i.e., an effect from the initial removal of AW from the tree
of life, I believe children do suffer that condemnation with all humanity.


Yes -- this is most interesting to me as well. I have never seen "condemnation" dealt with in quite the way David has approached it. Is the death of Adam and Eve spiritual or physical. It seems to me to be physical. God says they will die if they eat of the one tree. They are driven from the garden specifically because of their proximity to the other tree " .. if they eat they live forever . " In fact, the existence of the tree of life is somewhat of a surprise to the reader of the Genesis story. It is never even hinted at until "death" has become an issue. 

Plan B theology (as I call it) is a problem for me. Perhaps the two of you will say something in your discussion that will open a door on that issue for me. But please do not gear the discussion to that end. If something is said that inadvertently effects that thinking on my part -- so be it. I am just thinking out loud. I will shut up.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


jt: I've never ever read Augustine. How does he weasel his way into "everyone's"
 thinking when he's been dead for so long?


go back to sleep Judy. Bill and David do not need any help.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.


No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs. He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same. Remember -- without propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:17:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I don't preach tolerance of error like you do NA

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:56:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE are the most Intolerant people.


Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when they read this statement from the master of bullhorn evangelism? 

JD 



I rest my case.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

2005-02-09 Thread ttxpress





let's say there are people 
reading us who are in search of consistencyand consistency happens 
to be agarment of seamless thought and deedfor saleat its true 
cost..call it a coat of many colors that electrifieseven 'the blind boys 
of alabama'...(you 
gotta hear them singing 'I Just Wanna See His Face'..someonesaid that Mick 
Jagger wrote the lyrics: E.g., "..no more honkey talk about Jesus/I just wanna 
see his face.." )..anyway, let's sayone reader who bought 
itizat'the blind boys..' concert at the Kraft Music Hall and 
checks emailat intermission, and,while reading the post below the 
'blind boys..' start singing consistentlyagain..

suddenly, 
though,s/herealizes s/he'sstark naked standin' in a Rocky 
Mountain blizzard in the dead of night in Leadvillemuttering: 


'somehow thisdang 
electronic literatureput me out in the cold'

...'zowie..what happened'...i'm 
freezing'..'i can't even move'...'does anybody seemy 
coat??'

(narrator)
'it will come asno surprize 
thatfew can see what s/he's sayin', butmany may wonder--can 
you?'

..he whispers quietly so as to 
avoid an ad hominem that he thinks it goes beyond: 'b' 
:)

From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:45 
AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior Gary 
wrote:  how does tolerance factor into your  world view? 
E.g., is tolerance global  or is it of certain 
people?
[DavidM:] Tolerance is 
global. God is our example in this. If God were 
intolerant, he would have wiped out the world long ago. 
Instead, we find him to be very patient and longsuffering toward the 
workers of iniquity. 


On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:32:12 -0500 "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Kevin is right. Kevin is 
very consistent in that he teaches we should be 
intolerant.
||
Yet, Kevin is not [quite?]as intolerant as the 
sodomites who preach tolerance, but then they commit all manner of 
intolerance..

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

JOHN If and when the Mormons let down their guard, so to speak -- the moment they become open to meaningful dialogue, that is the time when God will work His will on all parties involved in the dialogue. it may take 20 years or 100 -- but it will happen. God is always working His ministry of reconciliation

Reconciled, Just like the Moabites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites others before them!
Got any for neighbors?God Reconciled them right off the map.
JOHN absolutely nothing in those articles was worthy of reproach.
Since we do not know which articles you read we can not comment on them
Mouw said "In just a month and a half we will greet the year 2005, which marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Smith. During this year there will be many occasions to pay special attention to Joseph's life and teachings, and I hope many in the evangelical community will take part in those events."
Will you be there? Will you worship with them too?

You try to spin it as if there is no furor in the Evangelical community over Mouw
Pastors Missionaries and other Christian workers are very upset but not the Mormons they love it.
Here are just a few articles
I am sure you are aware of what Mouw said you read it right?
Or are you exposing the same kind of ignorance of the facts as Mouw did?
These are harcly statements Mouw would like on his reume.

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?catid=5blogid=1
he had just been used, hopefully unwittingly, by LDS apologists so as to provide to them the very kind of weapon they long for. And I didn't have to wait long for the fulfillment of my prophecy. Today I read a review of Douglas E. Cowan's Bearing False Witness?

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?query=mouwamount=0blogid=1Mouw has surely been shown to have completely abandoned any semblance of meaningful scholarship in his study of LDS theology, that is for certain. Meanwhile, Paul Owen attempted to defend his own role in the controversy (he was defending the idea of seeing BYU profs as the new leaders of Mormonism before Mouw ever got involved) over at Reformed Catholicism.com

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9927But his remarks didn't sit well with some conservative evangelicals, a few of whom have posted lengthy responses to his published text on their own Web sites and have encouraged others to make their displeasure known to Mouw.As the backlash began following his speech, Mouw, who is also a columnist for Beliefnet.com, a nondenominational Web site, allowed the text of his remarks to be posted there with an explanation of the background for the meeting in Salt Lake City.
"(Mouw) was wrong," the story quoted the Rev. Gray as saying. "He had no business"

http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/richard-mouw.htmlIn essence, Dr. Mouw's unqualified comments gave Mormons all they wanted to hear, which is the idea that Christian evangelicals have been lying about them all along and now an evangelical leader is admitting it. I know from the mail we have received at MRM that this is exactly how Mormons are interpreting his comments.
http://getnewhope.blogs.com/personal_trainer/2004/11/mouw_and_mormon.htmlWhen he said this I turned to my friend Bill and said, "Is Fuller seminary going liberal?" Bill's _expression_ to me was one of disbelief at Dr. Mouw's words. It is very unfortunate. Bill later wrote an email that he sent to all on his ministry's email list.
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan05/Art_Jan05_oped1.htmlSadly, because of some unfortunate comments made by Dr. Richard Mouw, who is the president of Fuller Seminary, much of the attention has turned away from what Dr. Zacharias actually said. Dr. Mouw used his brief talk to give a broad-brush apology for the way evangelicals have treated Mormons in the past.
http://www.aaronandstacia.com/aaron/sly-eh/[M]ake friends with Mormon scholars by shooting in the head all those who have ministered to Mormons for years before you. A rather liberal evangelical scholar, president of a rather liberal evangelical seminary, has become acquainted with some rather liberal (in the LDS spectrum of things) LDS scholars. As a result of this interaction, he has joined other evangelicals in speaking in the LDS tabernacle Despite having little or no first hand knowledge of LDS theology proper, let alone knowledge gained from the practical interaction that comes with doing apologetics on a regular basis over time, Dr. Mouw has chosen to denigrate, based upon his own ignorance of the issue, all of those who have sacrificed and ministered in the
preceding years and decades to seek to bring the gospel to that very same city and to the very audience to whom he was speaking
An Open Letter to Ravi Zacharias - Bud Press, Christian Research Service
"We Have Sinned Against You" - Richard Mouw
Fuller President Apologizes to Mormons in Error - Dr. James White, Alpha Omega Ministries
The Sellout Has Begun - Dr. Robert Morey
Seminary President Apologizes for Christians Evangelizing

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

SEE Bottom of page it says Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who wrote it?
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


No, Bill didn't say these things. But that doesn't really matter, does it?You have made your point. It is time to let it go now, Kevin.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

BILL says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14  1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

BILL says What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other Authority you look to?

BILL says He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

Bill says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings 
KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them

KD Paul at Athens?
Did Paul get a booth at the market to build bridges with them?
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. KD Was he grieved sore? What meaneth "spirit stirred in him"?
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews
Are you saying "disputed" in the Word of God should have been translated Dialoged?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said
so he stands in the midst of a hill and says? Could this have been preaching verses 22 tru 31 sure sounds like a sermon to me.
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Thats the way to dialog, tell them they are IGNORANT Paul!
How about at:
Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
Thessalonica set all the city on an uproar
Ephesus, whole city was filled with confusion
Why did paul sayMiletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church ...
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore WATCH not Sleep, WATCH not Dialog.
Disputing Preaching, calling names,Much Contention, uproars, confusion a far cry from DiaLOGing!
I think you better check your Bible version to see if this is what it says.
BILLsays Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship.
KD says NO Fellowship with evil Millions are in Hell right now probably looking for Joe.
Mouw has given his assent to the LDS they love it they talk about it, even DaveH has brought it up. It did not alert them at all to their precarious state but instead grants authority to them being OK Every Mormon walked out of the Tabernacle Just as LOST as they walked in, what a lost opportunity. Some of the words used actually were turned around to the Mormonspeak version to actually confirm Mormine doctrine such as we will be married in heaven. This occured because of poor understanding on the speakers part. And if you are getting a LARGE sum of Money you would not say anything upsetting. Maybe he should have started out like Paul "YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP"!

Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Mick Jaggerwrote Sympathy for the Devil
Where do you guys draw the line or do you?
Moses drew a line in the sand and said Sumpin good 's gonna happen ta you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



let's say there are people reading us who are in search of consistencyand consistency happens to be agarment of seamless thought and deedfor saleat its true cost..call it a coat of many colors that electrifieseven 'the blind boys of alabama'...(you gotta hear them singing 'I Just Wanna See His Face'..someonesaid that Mick Jagger wrote the lyrics: E.g., "..no more honkey talk about Jesus/I just wanna see his face.." )..anyway, let's sayone reader who bought itizat'the blind boys..' concert at the Kraft Music Hall and checks emailat intermission, and,while reading the post below the 'blind boys..' start singing consistentlyagain..

suddenly, though,s/herealizes s/he'sstark naked standin' in a Rocky Mountain blizzard in the dead of night in Leadvillemuttering: 

'somehow thisdang electronic literatureput me out in the cold'

...'zowie..what happened'...i'm freezing'..'i can't even move'...'does anybody seemy coat??'

(narrator)
'it will come asno surprize thatfew can see what s/he's sayin', butmany may wonder--can you?'

..he whispers quietly so as to avoid an ad hominem that he thinks it goes beyond: 'b' :)

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:45 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior Gary wrote:  how does tolerance factor into your  world view? E.g., is tolerance global  or is it of certain people?
[DavidM:] Tolerance is global. God is our example in this. If God were intolerant, he would have wiped out the world long ago. Instead, we find him to be very patient and longsuffering toward the workers of iniquity. 


On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:32:12 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Kevin is right. Kevin is very consistent in that he teaches we should be intolerant.
||
Yet, Kevin is not [quite?]as intolerant as the sodomites who preach tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance..
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo!  Try it today!

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Bill Taylor wrote the following:

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an
apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat
with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through
which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to
understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :)
That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if
you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good.

Oh, and your
statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response
tog,
concerning tolerance and itsright placein the church and our
Lord's economy.

Good stuff,

Bill

More to the point, Kevin, I think it prudent that
you drop this right now. Will you please accommodate me?

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:26
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior

SEE Bottom of page it says Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So who wrote it?
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

No, Bill didn't say these things. But that
doesn't really matter, does it?You have made your point. It is time to
let it go now, Kevin.

Bill

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005
5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior

BILL says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of
scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along
in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14 1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have
to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are
not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different
than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

BILL says What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian
response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these
present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian
thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other
Authority you look to?

BILL says He knows full well that he does not speak for the
larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking
for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed
him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had
to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

Bill says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church
has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings

KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be
fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Your apology is accepted.

Bill

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:28
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior

Sorry Bill I see now that John wrote the portionI was responding
to.Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

No, Bill didn't say these things. But that
doesn't really matter, does it?You have made your point. It is time to
let it go now, Kevin.

Bill

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005
5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior

JOHN says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of
scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along
in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14 1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have
to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are
not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different
than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

JOHNsays What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true
Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and
with these present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian
thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other
Authority you look to?

JOHNsays He knows full well that he does not speak for
the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking
for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed
him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had
to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

JOHN says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church
has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings

KD Paul at Athens?
Did Paul get a booth at the market to build bridges with them?
Paul waited for them at
Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the
city wholly given to
idolatry. KD Was he
grieved sore? What meaneth "spirit stirred in him"?
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the
Jews
Are you saying "disputed" in the Word of God should have been
translated Dialoged?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars'
hill, and said
so he stands in the midst of a hill and says? Could this have been
preaching verses 22 tru 31 sure sounds like a sermon to me.
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto
you.
Thats the way to dialog, tell them they are IGNORANT Paul!
How about at:
Philippi, we were bold in our
God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much
contention.
Thessalonica set all the city on
an uproar
Ephesus, whole city was filled
with confusion
Why did paul
sayMiletus he sent to Ephesus, and
called the elders of the church ...
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in
among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore WATCH not Sleep, WATCH not Dialog.
Disputing Preaching, calling names,Much Contention, uproars,
confusion a far cry from DiaLOGing!
I think you better check your Bible version to see if this is what it
says.
John says Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in
view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of
fellowship.
KD says NO Fellowship with evil Millions are in Hell right now
probably looking for Joe.
Mouw has given his assent to the LDS they love it they talk about it,
even DaveH has brought it up. It did not alert them at all to their
precarious state but instead grants authority to them being OK Every
Mormon walked out of the Tabernacle Just as LOST as they walked in, what a
lost opportunity. Some of the words used actually were turned around to
the Mormonspeak version to actually confirm Mormine doctrine such as we
will be married in heaven. This occured because of poor understanding on
the speakers part. And if you are getting a LARGE sum of Money you would
not say anything

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

2005-02-09 Thread ttxpress




but Jesus mentioned only his Mom 
while dying..interesting no mention of any other personto be cared 
for..

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:35:11 -0800 (PST) 
Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Mormons claim Christ had multiple 
  wives ..

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior


More to the point, Kevin, I think it prudent that you drop this right now. Will you please accommodate me?
Drop what Mouw's disobedience? Is he your hero or something?
Other than Mouw I do not know what you are talking about
Kinda reminds me of a Japenese tech manual that said this that do here
to what or whom may I understand"this:" to refer?
What risks or uncertanties willI face if I am not prudent?
Can you see how your language could be construed as a threat?
I am sure that is not how you meant it so please be a little clearer.
I may be able to accomodate you, butI will have to wait for clarification.


prudent adjective SLIGHTLY FORMAL 
avoiding risks and uncertainties; careful:
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Bill Taylor wrote the following:


Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat with me then in that class. They would have a much better context through which to interpret his statements to the LDS; theymay even be able to understand what he was attempting to say -- perhaps even agree with it :) That course can be purchased on tape through Fuller Theological Seminary, if you are interested; Lance may even sell it, too(?) It is really good. 

Oh, and your statement above seems to me to have much in common with David's response tog, concerning tolerance and itsright placein the church and our Lord's economy.

Good stuff, 

Bill

More to the point, Kevin, I think it prudent that you drop this right now. Will you please accommodate me?

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

SEE Bottom of page it says Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who wrote it?
Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


No, Bill didn't say these things. But that doesn't really matter, does it?You have made your point. It is time to let it go now, Kevin.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

BILL says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14  1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

BILL says What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other Authority you look to?

BILL says He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

Bill says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings 
KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them

KD Paul at Athens?
Did Paul get a booth at the market to build bridges with them?
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. KD Was he grieved sore? What meaneth "spirit stirred in him"?
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews
Are you saying "disputed" in the Word of God should have been translated Dialoged?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said
so he stands in the midst of a hill and says? Could this have been preaching verses 22 tru 31 sure sounds like a sermon to me.
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Thats the way to dialog, tell them they are IGNORANT Paul!
How about at:
Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
Thessalonica set all the city on an uproar
Ephesus, whole city was filled with confusion
Why did paul sayMiletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church ...
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore WATCH not Sleep, WATCH not Dialog.
Disputing Preaching, calling names,Much Contention, uproars, confusion a far cry from DiaLOGing!
I think you better

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

My error, Thank you.Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Your apology is accepted.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Sorry Bill I see now that John wrote the portionI was responding to.Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

No, Bill didn't say these things. But that doesn't really matter, does it?You have made your point. It is time to let it go now, Kevin.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

JOHN says Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements.
KD says Romans 14  1 Co 13 have nothing to do with it they have to do with brethren not heathen AND they are disputes over things that are not condemned in scripture.Dealing with meat offered to idols is different than dealing with the Idolatry itself. You misapply the text.

JOHNsays What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances.
KD says How exactly IS DOCTOR Mouw doing the only true Christian thing?
Can you provide scriptural basis for this or is there some other Authority you look to?

JOHNsays He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group?Was he speaking for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

JOHN says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings 
KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them

KD Paul at Athens?
Did Paul get a booth at the market to build bridges with them?
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. KD Was he grieved sore? What meaneth "spirit stirred in him"?
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews
Are you saying "disputed" in the Word of God should have been translated Dialoged?
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said
so he stands in the midst of a hill and says? Could this have been preaching verses 22 tru 31 sure sounds like a sermon to me.
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Thats the way to dialog, tell them they are IGNORANT Paul!
How about at:
Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
Thessalonica set all the city on an uproar
Ephesus, whole city was filled with confusion
Why did paul sayMiletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church ...
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore WATCH not Sleep, WATCH not Dialog.
Disputing Preaching, calling names,Much Contention, uproars, confusion a far cry from DiaLOGing!
I think you better check your Bible version to see if this is what it says.
John says Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship.
KD says NO Fellowship with evil Millions are in Hell right now probably looking for Joe.
Mouw has given his assent to the LDS they love it they talk about it, even DaveH has brought it up. It did not alert them at all to their precarious state but instead grants authority to them being OK Every Mormon walked out of the Tabernacle Just as LOST as they walked in, what a lost opportunity. Some of the words used actually were turned around to the Mormonspeak version to actually confirm Mormine doctrine such as we will be married in heaven. This occured because of poor understanding on the speakers part. And if you are getting a LARGE sum of Money you would not say anything upsetting. Maybe he should have started out like Paul "YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP"!

Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

John wrote  Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

2005-02-09 Thread ttxpress




Kevin, Prudence is a good friend 
of TT. Will yourent her a room forweek or two, 
please?

Thanks!

G

--

cc. David 
Miller


On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:08:11 -0800 (PST) 
Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  More to the point, Kevin, I 
  think it prudent that you drop this right now. 
  Will you please accommodate me?
  
  Drop what
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Christians today allow all kinds of profane things to be said of God.
As a man I would not let someone talk about my wife in certain ways. The legal system has a term for such, it is called "Fighting Words"
How much has to be said about your Savior before you open your mouth?
Is there not a cause?

Every day GOLIATH came out and Blasphemed God
Is that not what the book says?
God's army stood idly by and did nothing.
Now here we have generals, fighting men, but not a one moved
They were really Roly Poly Chocolate soldiers they prefered the honor of men
They had their nicety nice pretty uniforms and the medals and ribbons.
They were parade rest christians. Like the ones that put the book under the arm for show.
Now God had to get himself a Boy cause he could not find a Man in the whole lot.
When the Boy showed up they immediately started calling him names what else could they do Parade rest Christians.

C. T Studd put it this way:
THE OTHERWISE CHRISTIAN IS A Chocolate Christian, dissolving in water and melting at the smell of fire. Sweeties they are! Bonbons, lollipops! Living their lives in a glass dish or in a cardboard box, each clad in his soft clothing, a little frilled white paper to preserve his dear little delicate constitution.
Chocolates are very fond of talking loud and long against some whom they call fanatics, as though there were any danger of Christians being fanatics nowadays! Why, fanatics among Christians are as rare as the dodo. Now, if they declaimed against tepidity, they would talk sense. God's real people have always been called fanatics. Jesus was called mad, so was Paul; so were Whitefield, Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon. No one has graduated far in God's school who has not been paid the compliment of being called a fanatic. We Christians of today are indeed a tepid crew. Had we but half the fire and enthusiasm of the Suffragettes of the past, we would have the world evangelized and Christ back amongst us in no time.
Alas! What stirs ordinary men's blood and turns them into heroes makes most Christians run like a flock of frightened sheep. Militants daily risk their lives in furtherance of their particular cause, and subscribe with their means in a way that cries "Shame!" on us Christians, who generally brand the braving of risks and fighting against odds as "tempting God".
Will you fear or will you fight? Shall your brothers go to war and will you sit here?
God never was a chocolate manufacturer and never will be.

HENCEFORTH...

For meTo live is ChristTo die is gainI'll be a militant orA man of GodA gambler forChristA Hero
Sign Here

For meChocolate my nameTepidity mytemperatureA malingerer, IA child of menA self-excuserA humbug
Sign Here

God's promises are sure in either case:

"I am with you always."
"I will spit you out of my mouth."[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

but Jesus mentioned only his Mom while dying..interesting no mention of any other personto be cared for..

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:35:11 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives ..
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Tough Time in Germany?

2005-02-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 
 Blaine:  Kevin, who are the Saints that are to possess the Kingdom?  You are 
adamant that they can't be the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, so who are they?  It is one thing to negate Joseph Smith, 
the Latter-day Saints, etc, but you never actually say who the Saints are that 
will be given judgement. So, tell us, who are these Saints, and why are they 
the preferred candidates for this honor?  
As usual, your comments have dwelt on the negative, so lets get on with the 
positive, for a change,OK?

 
That is the Mormon Kingdom right?
Like in Dan 7 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the 
saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the 
kingdom.
 
In your estimation who is this Ancient of Days?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

BLAINE: The falling away began as the Apostles died off or were martyred, but 
yes, it continues today, despite the efforts of courageous 
reformers--Protestants--to stem the tide of corrupt doctrines and practices. 
The LDS Church was started by God to restore the truth. It is the stone cut 
out of the side of the mountains without hands, mentioned by Daniel the 
Prophet. As I stated before, it is the goal of this Church (of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints) to prepare the world for the eventual establishment of the 
Kingdom of God on earth (Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is 
in heaven). It is the Kingdom Come of the Lord's prayer. The stone will 
continue to roll forth untill all nations are a part of that universal Kingdom 
Come. It had small beginnings, but as you can plainly see, it is gaining 
momentum' despite heavy opposition (from Kevin, mostly (: )

-- Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Blaine, isn't there supposed to be a great falling away before the end? 
Maybe that is what we are seeing in Europe. When people join the LDS, that 
is falling away, too! They are part of the problem!

Perry

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Tough Time in Germany?
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:49:41 GMT



David,

BLAINE: I had an exchange student from Germany stay with us for a full 
school year back a few years ago, and he said many things that were 
dismaying to me--for one thing, he was shocked we dressed up to attend 
church--he said the young people who attend church in Germany wear sneakers 
and cut-offs, if they attend at all--he said most do not attend, and care 
little for religion. The Luthern Church, he said was supported by the 
government, due to lack of attendance. There is a great deal of evidence 
that this falling off from religious involvement by the youger generation 
is not restricted to Germany--it is almost universal in Europe. I saw some 
stats the other day, regards Scandinavian countries--Marriage is 
declinging, live-in relationships increasing. I believe it mentioned 50% 
nationwide children are born to unwed parents in most Scandinavian 
countries. I am currently trying to locate a NY Times article documenting 
this falling off in the US--I believe it said most denominations are 
actually declining in membership--except o
ne, which is the LDS denomination. If I can locate the article I will post 
it.

-- David Miller wrote:
Blaine, I really appreciate you sharing this article about prostitution in
Germany with us. It was very fascinating. However, I'm not sure why you
use it as an example that the Bible is not enough.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 



--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] LDS Church throws curves

2005-02-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kevin wrote:
This plastic cone in Utah is called an amplified device so it falls under 
local Ordinances
SLC is also the only place I know of this side of the Iron curtain that 
actually has a Free Speech Permit you can apply for at City Hall
 
Since everyone knows the LDS Church has great Authority over the Government,  
makes back room deals with the Goverment of SLC  the State it has been called 
the ZION Curtain.


BLAINE:  The LDS Church really throws the SPs a lot of curved balls, in this 
game, huh?  LOL  They just don't play fair at all, according to Kevin.

--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:33:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sorry, but I didn't smile. Kevin is right. Kevin is very consistent in 
that he teaches we should be intolerant. That is why he gives the Mormons a 
hard time. Yet, Kevin is not as intolerant as the sodomites who preach 
tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance, hatred and 
violence when someone opposes their agenda.


David Miller. 


Kevin is intolerant of all and everyone who disagree's with him, including you, David Miller. And that is why I find it funny that he was criticize others for that very issue -- something you admit is clearly a part of who he is. And they are homosexuals, not sodomites. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Ben Stein's Final Column




Yes --- excellent


In a message dated 2/9/2005 1:19:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



MD: Stunning, Izzy, just stunning. 

ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 About real heroes/values:

 



Subject: Ben Stein's final column


 


 For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column for the online 
website called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of 
Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from 
around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other 
things in his life. Reading his final column is worth a few minutes of your 
time.


 



How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?

As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put 
a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is 
"eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this
column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing
this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.

It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and 
the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while 
better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still 
brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel 
L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before 
that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in 
which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's 
is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.

Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywoodstars
are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and 
they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who 
makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a 
camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.

How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane 
luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone 
bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not 
riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained 
in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese 
girls do their nails.

They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any 
longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked 
his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by 
a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam 
Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.

A real star is the U.S.soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road
north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S.
soldier in Baghdadwho saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded 
ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her 
aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate
in Californiaand a little girl alive in Baghdad.

The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish 
weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosuleven after two 
of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for 
the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.

We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our 
magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but
stand on guard in Afghanistanand Iraqand on ships and in submarines and 
near the Arctic Circleare anonymous as they live and die.

I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor 
values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who 
is eating at Morton's is a big subject.

There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen 
and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they 
will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have
been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and 
nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the 
kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.

Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World
TradeCenteras the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real
hero.

We are not responsible for the operation of the universe, and what happens 
to us is not terribly important. God is real, not a fiction; and when we 
turn over our lives to Him, He takes far better care of us than we could 
ever do for ourselves. In a word, we make ourselves sane when we fire 
ourselves as the directors of the movie

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Classification

2005-02-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Kevin wrote:
The First vision is dated 1820. I am sure you are aware of the many different 
versions

BLAINE:  I am fully aware of the different versions.  No contradictions, 
however, although they sometimes add information not present in other versions. 
 Some versions are not from Joseph, but are second-hand versions as others have 
retold what they recall from Joseph telling them.  They are all written in a 2 
volume set of books called THE PAPERS OF JOSEPH SMITH, published by Deseret 
Book.


--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when
they read this statement from the master of
bullhorn evangelism? (This is cool -- I don't even have to come up with a new
theme. It's ditto all over again. I would not mind having a civil
conversation with you, Kevin. But I do have an intolerance for intolerance.
I think such is evidence of one who has not the spirit of Christ. Hopefully that does not include you. but I see no love for the brethren in anything
you write. Maybe its under the pickle, huh?

John

In a message dated 2/9/2005 3:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Actually the real point is the Hypocrisy of those that call for tolerance; then not being tolerant. As I do not call for Tolerance I do not fit that category like some of you on TT.

For instance where is your Tolerance for those on TT that commit all manner of vitriolic speech, you mock smear and then gossip when they get offline?
You criticize the behavior you youselves practice more than any others on TT.
That is called Hypocrisy, can't stand the "miller four" and SPEAK up about that but have no problem with mixing with False Teachers maybe cause that is your crowd. You are the educated ones who look down on the poor knaves of TT If they were only are smart as you which is may I add debatable. You are as the Bible says, Heady Highminded, prideful, arrogant and haughty. You like to consider yourself smooth gentlemanly Christians but when you get your toes stepped on they we see your true colors. Your froward mouths caught in sin can not ceasefrom berating belittling long after those you slam have left TT or dropped the issue.
All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

This is what I observe from your behavior. There is no redeeming value thereof to your constant attacks. I am only left with the fact that your heart must be dark from the things that flow thru your mouth.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

When you guys get your hearts regenerated then maybe you will play like nice boys.

Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Did I hear you say you came out of the cambellite cult?

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Kevin wrote:
Some of the Loudest voice for TOLERANCE
are the most Intolerant people.

John wrote:
Be honest , now. Did anyone else smile when
they read this statement from the master of
bullhorn evangelism?

Sorry, but I didn't smile. Kevin is right. Kevin is very consistent in
that he teaches we should be intolerant. That is why he gives the Mormons a
hard time. Yet, Kevin is not as intolerant as the sodomites who preach
tolerance, but then they commit all manner of intolerance, hatred and
violence when someone opposes their agenda.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Go get 'em, "Bill." :-)
JDS

In a message dated 2/9/2005 4:46:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

BILL says He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church.
KD says Then who is this "WE have sinned" group? Was he speaking for you? In the use of WE, he did talk for ALL Evangelicals, who appointed him the Evangelical POPE? He has upset many many Evagelicals and has had to backpeddle numerous times since the original comments.

Bill says More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. ...
KD says Are you saying that everyone is a Christian?
Mormons are christian? Mormons are within the church and are to be fellowshiped with?
How does Eph 5:11 square with this philosophy? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them

BILLsays Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship.
KD says NO Fellowship with evil Millions are in Hell right now probably looking for Joe.
Mouw has given his assent to the LDS they love it they talk about it, even DaveH has brought it up. It did not alert them at all to their precarious state but instead grants authority to them being OK Every Mormon walked out of the Tabernacle Just as LOST as they walked in, what a lost opportunity. Some of the words used actually were turned around to the Mormonspeak version to actually confirm Mormine doctrine such as we will be married in heaven. This occured because of poor understanding on the speakers part. And if you are getting a LARGE sum of Money you would not say anything upsetting. Maybe he should have started out like Paul "YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP"!

Bill Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

John wrote Romans 14 and I Cor 13 are two passages of scripture written for the express purpose of showing us how to get along in the face of doctrinal and personal disagreements. What Dr. Mouw is doing is the only true Christian response to the Mormon Church -- at this time and with these present circumstances. He knows full well that he does not speak for the larger Christian Church. He has no intention of compromising what he or anyone else believes and has been very clear on that point. More than one fellowship within the Larger Church has been accepted in spite of questionable beginnings. ... Dr. Mouw is to be honored, in my book, in view of the fact that he seeks only a dialogue on this issue of fellowship. He is doing what Paul did in Athens. Nothing more and nothing less. He is clearly exemplifying the character of Christ in these matters.

Well stated, John. By the way, I had Mouw in an apologetics class. I wish everyone who is disparaging him now could have sat with me then in that

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:25:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JOHN If and when the Mormons let down their guard, so to speak -- the moment they become open to meaningful dialogue, that is the time when God will work His will on all parties involved in the dialogue. it may take 20 years or 100 -- but it will happen. God is always working His ministry of reconciliation 
 
Reconciled, Just like the Moabites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites others before them!
 Got any for neighbors? God Reconciled them right off the map.



Yeah, and those dirty old Ninevites -- they repented but did not convert. And that dirty old man, Noah drunk and sleepin with his own daughters, and the whoring Samson, and the confused Peter, fight one day and retreat the next, and those cowardly apostles, unwilling to attend either the trial or the cross, that Gentile who lives without knowledge of the law, or the vegetarian who disagrees with Paul's clear teachings on the subject of meats, and those carnal babes in Christ -- still of the flesh but saved. I could go on. The point being this: in scripture we see judgment and grace. With Kevin, only judgment .. at least as far as your involvement with TT is concerned. This is not good, Kevin. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:30:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Sorry Bill I see now that John wrote the portion I was responding to.



Apparently your eyes completely close when you write or speak. Got to work on that. Sooner or later, you could walk off the deep end. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:36:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Would a christian Gentle"man" like you stand by as another man claimed that your wife had multiple husbands? Would you allow him to defame her name fconstantly? Would you dialog?
 Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives thats OK with you mums the word.
 
Stand by while as a thug broke into your home in the middle of the night while your family slept? Would you dialog with him? 


I am sorry, Kevin. I thought we were "discussing" the exchange of ideas as they relate to fellowship and tolerance. I seem to remember the name "Dr. Mouw." There was some claim to unity based upon unanimous solidarity in the realm of doctrinal preferences. When one speaks of "campbellite," it is then revealed that he is either mean or green. That was a part of the "discussion." And then, suddenly, someone is compromising my wife and standing about in my house in the middle of the night. Have you ever seen a really fat man wearing nothing but his favorite speedo chasing another man from his house late at night. It is truly a scary sight, or so I am told. That sign on my front door, "Fat man with speedo awaits your presense inside" pretty much insures my house as a criminally free zone. So, shall we engage in discussion? This is a discussion group. You seem offended by that fact. Curious. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:40:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Mick Jagger wrote Sympathy for the Devil
 Where do you guys draw the line or do you?
 Moses drew a line in the sand and said Sumpin good 's gonna happen ta you


Was that before or after he took credit for the water from the rock?

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:43:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Something tells me if you were in Moses place, you would have stormed into Pharios court and Boldy said "Let my people please have a variance"!



 :-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:48:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


but Jesus mentioned only his Mom while dying..interesting no mention of any other person to be cared for..
 
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:35:11 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
Mormons claim Christ had multiple wives ..




Actually, the best of arguments on this point. Salute, brother G.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/9/2005 8:09:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

am sure that is not how you meant it so please be a little clearer. 
 I may be able to accomodate you, but I will have to wait for clarification.


Or what?

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior





On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:45:55 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:25:51 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Are you saying we 
  are to be tolerant of false Doctrine?Why did David say he hates 
  every False Way?Should we love wolves come into the Church to 
  devour?And what was that list of doctrines you are in full 
  agreement with in others? On a practical level, your thesis has 
  been proven to be untenable -- proving that everyone 
  is someone elses false prophet and everyone's doctrinal reservoir is 
  someone (read" "everyone") else's poisonous pond. The ONLY 
  WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM in terms of fellowship is to be found in the Light 
  of God's presense (I Jo 1:7). JD
  
  Only if one is following men 
  around, worshipping pastors and other ppl. Not for those who hear the 
  voice of the Savior
  andwho follow and obey 
  Him. JT

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:36:04 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 2/9/2005 7:25:51 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JOHN: If and when the Mormons let down
their guard, so to speak -- the moment they become open to
meaningful dialogue, that is the time when God will work His will on all
parties involved in the dialogue. it may take 20 years or
100 -- but it will happen. God is always working
His ministry of reconciliation Kevin: Reconciled, Just like
the Moabites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites others before them!Got
any for neighbors? God Reconciled them right off the map.John: Yeah,
and those dirty old Ninevites -- they repented but did not
convert. And that dirty old man, Noah drunk and sleepin with his
own daughters, and the whoring Samson, and the confused Peter, fight one
day and retreat the next, and those cowardly apostles, unwilling to attend
either the trial or the cross, that Gentile who lives without knowledge of the
law, or the vegetarian who disagrees with Paul's clear teachings on the
subject of meats, and those carnal babes in Christ -- still of the flesh
but saved. I could go on. The point being
this: in scripture we see judgment and grace. With Kevin,
only judgment .. at least as far
as your involvement with TT is concerned. This is not good,
Kevin. JD

It's grace to hear about God's
judgment and to be warned. Kevin is faithful whereas some are so loving
and so nice and so tolerant in
their carnality and fear of man that they leave people in their darkness and ignorance. For those
ppl that day will come upon them
unawares. JT

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin