date:20050212




So, moderation today means jumping in to stir the 
pot and to notify all as to whose side you are on, along with identifying 
and card filing those in the discussion?.  Gary your hatred is thinkly 
veiled.
 
The observations sound familiar though: 

 
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and 
perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they 
took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus".
 
So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone 
who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He 
sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  this is crucial--all 
  posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 
  'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, 
  she 
  maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly 
  equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth'
   
  in the background, like 
  'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the hermeneutic in 
  play is that unlearnedness rules; in 'bible, bible, 
  bible' posts laced with the 
  authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without learning appears to 
  be the operative hermeneutical dynamic
   
  to account simultaneously for 
  (e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual 
  comments--parallel bias against those who know by 
  or through learning together--requires some 
  intelligence 
   
  how could one cut 
  through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
   
  this is a high magnitude 
  moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, 
  enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the foregoing 
  helps our readers to follow the discussion, too
   
  G
   
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 
  "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  
And I still don't understand, 
for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior




 

John writes: Anyone who believes that Unity in the 
Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and 
thinking the same thing"  
(as extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist.  JD
 
jt: Depends what kind of faith you are unified around - 

We are free to think and speak whatever we please but 
if you are off doing your own thing then you will have no part in 
the unity of faith in the Christ of scripture. 

 
Now the Mormons are being taught to speak and think the 
same thing.  Would you call this sect legalistic?  
The Magisterium of the RCC requires thinking and 
speaking the same thing - what about them?
The writer of the Epistles also says it is desires but 
that we grow into it in Christ. So what about that?
Take your pick
 
"Nevertheless whereto we have already 
attained, let us walk by the SAME RULE, let us MIND THE SAME THING" (Phil 
3:16)

Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?

2005-02-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]



BLAINE:  Who are you to say who was responsible?  Joseph had a complex 
organization of hundreds of men working under him.  It would have been 
impossible for errors not to happen.  You are, as usual, grabbing at straws.  
Besides, you did not even seem to be aware of the difference between the first 
vision, and the subsequent angelic visitation by Moroni.  I repeat:  They were 
two separate events--three years or so apart.


Joseph was responsible for these news articles so he must have got mixed up

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

BLAINE: Thank you for taking time to look these up. But I see no problem here. 
The names Nephi and Moroni both sound a lot alike--it is likely people got the 
two confused when writing down what they heard Joseph say. 
Also, the first vision and the angelic visit are separate events: the first 
vision took place in the wooded area near the Smith home, now referred to as 
the "Sacred Grove," when Joseph was if his fifteenth year--about 1820. All 
accounts of this event mention two individuals, and that they were identical in 
appearance.
The visit from the angel took place later, on September 21, 1823, in the Smith 
home, after Joseph Smith had prayed to find out his standing before God--by 
that time, he had related the story of the first vision to many people, and 
persecution, reviling and all manner of evil speaking against him had 
immediately arisen, mostly from ministers of the various religions, but 
apparently from many others as well. He states in his 1838 history that "I was 
led to say in my heart: why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually 
seen a vision, and who am I that I can withstand God? . . . " 
--
"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] Nephi or Moroni?

2005-02-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]



BLAINE:  Very ineresting account, Kevin.  I fully believe everything in it. But 
it is just incomplete.  Joseph Smith was focusing on his conversation with 
Jesus Christ.  He simply did not mention in this account the full course of 
events.  According to the official account, the Father had spoken moments 
before, saying, This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased--hear ye him. 
 This all makes perfect sense to me--again, you are just grabbing at straws, as 
all detractors do.  You need to be more positive, and the light of this great 
event will begin to seep in on you. Love and charity , Kevin, are the keys.  
Charity will tell you the truth of all things.  


All accounts DO NOT include two individuals!
Most accounts do not for instance the 1832 handwritten acct of Joe
http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml
I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and 
{to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] 
attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of 
{fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and 
rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the 
heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] 
thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my 
commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that 
all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life [behold] the world lieth 
in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned 
asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments they draw near to me with 
their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling 
against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness 
and to bring to pass that which [hat
h] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come 
quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father 
and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great 
joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly 
vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things 
which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired 
that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and 
afflictions. 


--
"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] Nephi or Moroni?

2005-02-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kevin's report of JS's words:
"and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great 
joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly 
vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things 
which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired 
that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and 
afflictions. "

BLAINE:  This is a beautiful account written by a humble man, Joseph Smith. 
Thank you for finding it.  It makes me very happy that he was willing to admit 
he was not perfect.  I am not perfect either, are you perfect Kevin?  I once 
had a spiritual experience which, like that of Joseph Smith, "filled my heart 
with love for many days."   I know exactly how that feels.



--
"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




A smattering of applause from those who perceived 
the choice of 'thinkly' veiled to have been intentional. However Jt's 'deflector 
shields' allowed her to remain unscathed by Gary's 'phonton torpedoes'. Now 
we're talkin' 'rules of engagement'. (NB:she can't lose 'cause she can't be 
'hit')

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 06:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  So, moderation today means jumping in to stir 
  the pot and to notify all as to whose side you are on, along with 
  identifying and card filing those in the discussion?.  Gary your hatred 
  is thinkly veiled.
   
  The observations sound familiar though: 
  
   
  "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and 
  perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant men, they marvelled; and they 
  took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus".
   
  So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone 
  who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He 
  sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt
   
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:48:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

this is crucial--all 
posts carry interpretive baggage; obviously, jts 
'science of intepretation', theologically, is not yours; also, 
she 
maintains that it's only her 'science of intepretation' that perfectly 
equates to 'rightly dividing the Word of Truth'
 
in the background, like 
'stealth' is to a B1 bomber, the 
hermeneutic in play is that unlearnedness 
rules; in 'bible, bible, bible' posts laced with the authors' 'unlearnable' Truth, knowing without 
learning appears to be the operative hermeneutical 
dynamic
 
to account simultaneously for 
(e.g., jt's) aggressive anti-intellectual 
comments--parallel bias against those who know by 
or through learning together--requires some 
intelligence 
 
how could one cut 
through this w/o the foregoing assessment in play?
 
this is a high magnitude 
moderator conundrum--very complex; thanks for sticking with it, 
enquiring, etc.--its v helpful(!); hopefully the 
foregoing helps our readers to follow the discussion, 
too
 
G
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 
"Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  And I still don't 
  understand, for that matter, why [jt] would say such 
  things,

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  In a message dated 2/11/2005 8:06:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
How about perverts?  That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch.
Terry

  
  
Depends on whether you are trying to help them or not.   The behavior is very 
disgusting.  
By "help them" I am talking about doing the work of an evangelist.  

Jd
  


I was talking nomenclature, John, not outreach.  Before you reach out
to someone, it helps to have an accurate description of what you are
reaching for, or to.  I would say that filthy disgusting pervert is a
more accurate description than "Gay".  

I worked for eleven years in a California prison, both as a
correctional officer and a caseworker.  I had pervert janitors, pervert
scullery workers, perverts in my group counseling groups and a pervert
clerk.  They were a constant source of friction and trouble, everything
from stealing your marking pens to do their eyebrows to cold blooded
murder.  They deceive themselves and they will deceive you. I do not
know perverts by participation, but I know them by association as well
as anyone does.  There is nothing gay about them.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that the term 'sodomites', below, includes purveyors of perversions such
as gossip and gluttony reinforces a biblical learning curve, Terry
'sodomite' actually reads as a reference to those who dwelt in Sodom,
where, acc to Scripture, there were numerous/various injustices
E.g., Sodom's description by the Prophets suggests a meaning for
'sodomite' which involves an array of exclusive cosmopolitan activities,
a general corruption way beyond disfunctional and antisocial behaviors
involving sexual disorder, deviance, etc.
IOW, the term below has been emptied of its biblical meaning and made to
be extremely pejorative by design--notice to whom it is subtly applied on
TT (including its archives) 

..the SP 'world view' incorporates and intensifies certain cultural
stereotypes partic for shotgun homiletical effect/s, a characteristic of
'knowing minus learning' style hermeneutics.. 

 G
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:04:29 -0600 Terry Clifton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kevin Deegan wrote: 
So sodomites it is then!

||
==
Thank you.  Now please explain about the Gommorahites.
Terry
--
"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

Thanks for the backstory, Terry. 

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

  Sent: February 12, 2005 08:27
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult 
  behavior
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  In a message dated 2/11/2005 8:06:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

How about perverts?  That should cover the whole filty disgusting bunch.
Terry

Depends on whether you are trying to help them or not.   The behavior is very 
disgusting.  
By "help them" I am talking about doing the work of an evangelist.  

Jd
  I was 
  talking nomenclature, John, not outreach.  Before you reach out to 
  someone, it helps to have an accurate description of what you are reaching 
  for, or to.  I would say that filthy disgusting pervert is a more 
  accurate description than "Gay".  I worked for eleven years in a 
  California prison, both as a correctional officer and a caseworker.  I 
  had pervert janitors, pervert scullery workers, perverts in my group 
  counseling groups and a pervert clerk.  They were a constant source of 
  friction and trouble, everything from stealing your marking pens to do their 
  eyebrows to cold blooded murder.  They deceive themselves and they will 
  deceive you. I do not know perverts by participation, but I know them by 
  association as well as anyone does.  There is nothing gay about 
  them.Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is 
  the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, 
  but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you 
  (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
  
   
  jt: To me it no longer matters 
  about DeHaan and the meaning of this Greek Word.  If I were writing about 
  the subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even 
  sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this 
  with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the 
  term.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  There is a 
  whole lot more involved in this than a few Greek words and a pile of 
  Lexicons.
   
  When we discussed this 
  earlier I was writing to DavidM who for some reason also believed (back 
  then anyway) that Jesus was the same as us in every way except that he never 
  acted out to actually commit a sin - a notion which I found and still 
  find abhorrent. I had DeHaan's book about the blood here at the time and this 
  was (as you note) his argument. However, since then I have done some homework 
  on my own about the subject.
   
  All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot 
  that notion in the foot - think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, 
  today, and forever."
  Yesterday he was the second member 
  of the Godhead.  God is a spirit (Jn 4:24).  So what part of Jesus 
  the man was "Emmanuel" God with us?  In what way is this comparable to 
  the fallen Adamic race?
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are 
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the 
same.' 
  
JT  > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children 
are 
partakers of flesh and 
blood he also himself likewise took 
part of the 
same."
 
He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human 
children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of 
Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' 

 
JT  > In 
this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be 
partakers of flesh and 
blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise 
took 
part of the 
same. 
 
He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely 
different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. 
 
JT > The word "took part" as 
applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied 
to the children.
 
He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 
'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' 
 
JT > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's 
self" 
 
He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 
'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's 
children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. 
 
JT > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to 
"share fully" so that all of Adam's 
children share fully in Adam's flesh and 
blood.
 
He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 
'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take 
both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh 
part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." 
 

JT  
>  When we read that JESUS "took part of the 
same" the word is 
METECHO which means "to take part but 
not all" The children take 
both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only 
part, that is, the flesh part, 
whereas the blood was the result of supernatural 
conception
 
   I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That 
  would be interesting to know.
   
   Bill
  
 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Bill 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin



  
  
  
  


As it relates 
to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, 
Judy wrote   >   
Jesus partook 
of human flesh without partaking of the effect

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




This reminds me, I found the rest of the saying ... 
:)
Architects cover their mistakes with paint
Doctors cover their mistakes with sod,
Brides cover their mistakes with mayonaise
Hypocrites cover themselves with ritual
Theologians cover themselves with words
(Should I add Greek ones?)
 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:03:41 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your 
Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way. Bill

  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biil    never tire of offering your 
opinion on these matters.   A very beneficial 
post.   Your lexical aides are interesting.   When we 
get together, I will bring my 1935  A.T, Robertson Greek grammar  
--- we can stand above the book, holding lite 
candles  and hum or something !!   Cool.  
JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific 
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: 


  As it relates to the 
current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy 
wrote   >   Jesus 
partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's 
blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood 
he also himself likewise took 
part of the 
same."

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior





g..ites whatever ain't conducive 
to stereotypicalization while 'sodomites' has the certain homiletical ring 
down the streets and alleys of SLC..the Wyatt Earp effect--ever been to 
Tombstone? was it WE or Doc that carried the sawed off 
shotgun?
 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:35:07 -0600 Terry 
Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:||explain about the 
Gommorahites.> >> Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Peter and John had a learning 
curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were unlearned' is past tense 
baby
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy 
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   of Peter and John and perceived 
  that they were unlearned and ingnorant 
men

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.

Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  

JD


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   "

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So ignorant and unlearned does not disqualify anyone who hears the voice of the Chief Shepherd. God is funny like that. He sometimes hides things from the wise and prudent.  jt


Actually, Judy, if you would take to time to read G's post, you would find a clear and positive statement about your intellectualism.   I did not read it as a slam to you.   Not at all   -    if anything, G was giving folks like me a point of view that allows for differing intellectualism from you.  It helped me to understand you a little more.  


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/12/2005 4:37:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


John writes: Anyone who believes that Unity in the Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and thinking the same thing"  
(as extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist.  JD
  
jt: Depends what kind of faith you are unified around - 
We are free to think and speak whatever we please but if you are off doing your own thing then you will have no part in 
the unity of faith in the Christ of scripture. 
 
Now the Mormons are being taught to speak and think the same thing.  Would you call this sect legalistic?  
The Magisterium of the RCC requires thinking and speaking the same thing - what about them?
 The writer of the Epistles also says it is desires but that we grow into it in Christ. So what about that?
 Take your pick
  
"Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the SAME RULE, let us MIND THE SAME THING" (Phil 3:16)
  


I am not sure as to your point.   We  (you and I) already agree on my comment as per your post.   

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/12/2005 4:37:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John writes: Anyone who believes that Unity in the Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and thinking the same thing"  
(as extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist.  JD
  
jt: Depends what kind of faith you are unified around - 
We are free to think and speak whatever we please but if you are off doing your own thing then you will have no part in 
the unity of faith in the Christ of scripture. 
 


And what was the "vegetarian" in Romans 14 doing ifnot "his own thing?"   

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 4:32:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

(NB:she can't lose 'cause she can't be 'hit')

:-)

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




One of Alan Arkin's greatest roles.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 11:33
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Gary your 
hatred is thinkly veiled.Of course it is thinkly 
  veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  
  JD"The intellectuals are coming;   the 
  intellectuals are coming  !!   
"

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:11:39 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

BT: I was just trying to understand why you would 
say such things as "Jesus did 
not come here as God" and "... so he was not on this earth as 
God," that's all. And I still don't understand, for that matter, why 
you would say such things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess 
it's not a 
problem.  Hm: Where are 
the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his 
head.
 
jt: I say this Bill because to begin 
with noone has ever seen God and lived to tell ...  Even at Mt. Sinai 
Moses only saw His hinder parts
and still had to put a veil over 
his face so as not to scare the people.  The Israelites had sense enough 
not to want to go near that mountain because they would have been 'consumed' by 
His presence.  This is the kind of glory that was layed aside and left in 
heaven when Jesus came to earth to take upon Himself the body God had 
prepared for him in the womb of Mary.

   
  
Bill had asked (for the second time): Was 
Jesus God with us, and if so, why did you say he "did not come here 
as God," and if not, why do you say he is not Emmanuel?
 
jt answered: Have you 
ever heard of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Bill?  One can 
force scripture to validate anything when they come with a 
strong preconceived notion.
 
Jesus came here as the 
Son of God and during His incarnation He said and did only what He 
first saw the Father doing and saying> He said He had no power in 
and of Himself and that His Father was greater than He. As for Emmanuel 
and God with us .. When did I say He is not Emmanuel?  Why is this 
a big deal? In 
His preincarnate state He was the Rock Who travelled with Israel in the 
wilderness, so He has always been God with us, and still is (see 1 Cor 
10:4)
 
What's the 
problem??
 
BT: I was just trying to understand why you 
would say such things as "Jesus did not come here as God" and 
"... so he was not on this earth as God," that's all. And I 
still don't understand, for that matter, why you would say such 
things, but I guess it's not for me to know, so I guess it's not a 
problem.  Hm: Where are 
the thought police on this one? Bill asks, scratching his 
head.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I wrote > Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your
statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the
Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he
should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of
his definition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing about
the subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not
even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate
this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the
term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even.
I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is
the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill that
we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old
Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue
over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is
the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's
nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus"
was not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came
together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His
two nature did not fuse to become a different kind of new substance,
partly God and partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both
would have been otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity
of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his humanity ("that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's
nature along with the rest of fallen humanity"). But you only think this way because you are thinking of
Jesus in terms of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is
nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it
is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being
"the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers
of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a
union -- the union of two natures coming together in one person:
fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we
would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting
that we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new
divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks
can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together
to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance;
they become a union. That is what happened in the person of Christ between
his human nature and his divine nature; they formed a union, not an alloy.
Therefore God was in now way tainted by the fallenness of
humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the
tryants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming
perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he
suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But think
of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have major
problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll have
problems with his humanity, and you will have problems with his divinity.
You will be saying things like "Jesus did not come here as God," on one day,
and he "took on part, but not all" of humanity, i.e., "the flesh but
not the blood" on the next. Repent of your Greek concepts, Judy, and think
like Jesus, a Jew. There is no excuse for continuing in ignorance and
unlearnedness once you have heard the truth.
All it takes is Heb 13:8 to shoot
that notion in the foot - think about it "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
today, and forever."
Yesterday he was the second
member of the Godhead. God is a spirit (Jn 4:24). So what part
of Jesus the man was "Emmanuel" God with u

Re: [TruthTalk] Nephi or Moroni?

2005-02-12 Thread David Miller

Joseph Smith wrote:
>> Nevertheless I fell into transgression and
>> sinned in many things which brought wound
>> upon my Soul [sic] and there were many things
>> which transpired that cannot be writen [sic] and
>> my Fathers [sic] family have suffered many persecutions
>> and afflictions.

Blaine wrote:
> This is a beautiful account written by a
> humble man, Joseph Smith. Thank you
> for finding it.  It makes me very happy that
> he was willing to admit he was not perfect.

What Joseph Smith wrote here is despicable.  Visions from God inherently 
have the opposite effect as described by Smith.  They lead one to walk far 
above sin.

Blaine wrote:
> I once had a spiritual experience which,
> like that of Joseph Smith, "filled my heart
> with love for many days."   I know exactly
> how that feels.

Did you also sin in many things after your experience?

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

Big mistake corrected below in BOLD
UPPERCASE!, smaller ones corrected, too.

- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:00
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:54:21 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:

I wrote > Never mind, Judy, I found it.
Your statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan
of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It
seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the
obscurity of his definition for this word.
jt: ... If I were writing
about the subject today I would not even bother with all that and
I'm not even sure that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so
many equate this with the RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came
up with the term.
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable
even. I rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened
that it is the heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's
all.
Do you find it ironic Bill
that we get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born
with the old Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand
and then argue over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on
the other which is the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has
now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen
humanity?
BT: I will point out once again the
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of
"Jesus" was not an amalgamization in the sense that his two natures
came together to form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming
brass. His two nature did not fuse to become a different kind of
new substance, partly God and partly man, similar yet dissimilar from
what they both would have been otherwise. This is what you propose
above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be tainted by his
humanity ("that God (Emmanuel) has now
taken on Satan's nature along with the rest of fallen
humanity"). But you only think this way
because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an alloy. But
your idea of Jesus is nothing other than the syncretism
Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea of a demigod
that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a
mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin
Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is
a union -- the union of two natures coming together in one
person: fully God, fully man.
This idea is not
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms
of a Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed
that we would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not
suggesting that we would somehow become little gods, that we
would be a new divine substance similar to God. No, the
"one" to which he speaks can only be understood relationally, like a
husband and a wife come together to make one flesh. They do not become
an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a union. That is what
happened in the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine
nature; they formed a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was
in NO way tainted by the fallenness of humanity in
the person of Jesus Christ. Instead humanity was purified in
relationship with God in Christ's person throughout his life,
the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through
the things he suffered.
Think of the two
natures in the one person of Christ as a union and you will not ask
questions like the one above. Jesus is Emmanuel, NO PROBLEM. But
think of Jesus like the Greeks thought of demigods, and you will have
major problems with everything related to the person of our Lord. You'll
have problems with his humanity, and you will have problems with his
d

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Judy,
 
I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't 
read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say 
that he is one of our "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is way 
into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while back -- 
they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But he is not 
one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still too Arminian 
for my liking; although he has done some good work relating to the problem 
of evil.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - TT 
  is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
  are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is a 
  review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
  be interested.  The reviewer points out the 
  obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - just
  all love and dancing with no responsibility.  
  Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt
   
  On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of 
engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply 
impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with 
one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are 
sufficiently similar to do so. 
 
jt: Their gospels are 
sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of 
engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




I think the attachment is a Word Perfect 
file.  I had troubles also.  Boyd is 'one of my boys'.  I highly 
enjoyed 'Repenting of Religion' but most of all find comfort in Boyd's attempts 
at understanding suffering and evil (and he is one of the few 
Trinitarians who takes on spiritual warfare).  While at the end of the 
day I would probably reject Open Theism I wholeheartedly appreciate its 
attempts at challenging our ideas of suffering, prayer, and knowledge.  
There is much in the Open view of God that is worth hearing and 
digesting.
 
Jonathan lurking at Lance's desk  


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Bill Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 12, 2005 13:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
  Judy,
   
  I couldn't get your attachment to open, so didn't 
  read the review, but I saw that it has to do with Gregory Boyd. Why do you say 
  that he is one of our "boys" (I assume you include me in this)? Boyd is 
  way into open theism, which is what Terry and David were discussing a while 
  back -- they made some really interesting observations, too, I might add. But 
  he is not one of my "boys" -- not yet anyway. He'll have to change -- still 
  too Arminian for my liking; although he has done some good work relating 
  to the problem of evil.
   
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:37 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin

Don't know anything about "rules of engagement" - 
TT is Rafferty's rules most of the time but once more you
are living in the world of Lance.  Attached is 
a review of one of "your boys" FYI and anyone else who might
be interested.  The reviewer points out the 
obvious contradictions but likes the concept. Who wouldn't - 
just
all love and dancing with no responsibility.  
Only problem is it's irrelevance to Truth.  jt
 
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:06:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Bill:  IMO ONLY, Judy has 'rules of 
  engagement' and both you and John violate them.In so doing it is simply 
  impossible for either of you to have the conversation you could have with 
  one another as your 'rules of engagement' (yours & Johns) are 
  sufficiently similar to do so. 
   
  jt: Their gospels are 
  sufficiently similar Lance - this has nothing to do with any rules of 
  engagement like in a boxing or wrestling match.

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter and John had a learning curve which effects ppl--the phrase 'were
unlearned' is past tense baby
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:06:54 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ingnorant
men
 

=
Now it's professor Peter and doctor John.
--
"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

2005-02-12 Thread David Miller

Bill Taylor wrote:
> Hey, David, would you tell me how you
> interpret Jesus' words in the following
> verses (feel free to draw from a larger
> context if you like)?
>
> John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth.
> Your word is truth."
> John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify
> Myself, that they also may be sanctified by
> the truth."

In a nutshell, this passage teaches us that the word of God is truth, and it 
changes our hearts from that with which we were born.  It causes us to be 
set apart as a peculiar people, a spiritual people, holy before God.  This 
transformation occurs as we hear his word and believe his word, which is 
what trusting in Christ is.  This passage also speaks about Jesus being our 
perfect example.  He walked in this sanctifying process first, before us, 
that we also might be sanctified by the truth.  It is by seeing how this 
worked itself out in the life of Christ that we know that we can do it too, 
and we can know what kind of response we will get in the world as we walk 
like this.  This is the power of the incarnation.

We might also observe here that it is not some magical work of Christ that 
sanctifies us, but rather we are sanctified by the word of truth that finds 
root in our hearts.  We are sanctified in the same way that Jesus was 
sanctified -- by the word of truth.

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !! 
 

=
Woe is us !!
 "
 

--
"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 Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
 
jt: ... If I were writing about the 
subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
 
BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
 
Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old Adamic 
sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue over whether 
or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is the same as 
saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along 
with the rest of fallen humanity?  
 
BT: I will point out once again the 
deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and partly 
man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been otherwise. 
This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could somehow be 
tainted by his humanity 
 
"that God 
(Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the rest 
of fallen humanity"
 
 But you only think 
this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms of an 
alloy. But your idea of Jesus is nothing other than 
the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it is their idea of a 
demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the 
offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not 
all of the powers of a god" (The American 
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by 
Houghton Mifflin Company). The person of Jesus was not an 
alloy; he is a union -- the union of two natures 
coming together in one person: fully God, fully man. 

 
jt: I don't relate to the 
"alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  I 
don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us.  
ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 

 
This idea is not 
difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we would 
be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that we 
would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new 
divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks can 
only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together to make 
one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they become a 
union. 
 
jt: A husband and wife come 
together sexually as 'one flesh' which is a physical act. The Godhead is one 
Spirit which is a whole other kind of oneness.
 
That is what happened in 
the person of Christ between his human nature and his divine nature; they formed 
a union, not an alloy. Therefore God was in now way tainted by 
the fallenness of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. 

 
jt: If Jesus was born with an 
Adamic nature he would have to have that taint if it comes through 
procreation.  However, it appears that Adam was held responsible in the 
garden and men were held responsible for the spirituality of their families 
under the Old Covenant. DavidM and I were discussing this in a 
biological way or by looking at natural generation.  However, I note that 
the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not give Jesus a genealogy after the 
flesh.  Matthew traces the generations from Abraham through Isaac (the 
son of Promise) to David and on to Christ (the Promise) and in Luke 
the genealogy goes all the way back to Adam genealogically and ends with Christ 
the son of Joseph (as was supposed) and we know that this is not so - which 
gives Jesus a spiritual rather than a natural genealogy - don't ask me to 
reconcile this with Greek syncretism.
 
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God in 
Christ's person throughout his life, the tryants 
being defeating all along the way, and the humanity "becoming perfected" 
in the process of learning obedience to God through the things he suffered. 

 
jt: How do we learn obedience 
by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to learn all over 
again as God prunes us?
 
Think of the two natures 
in the one person of Christ as a union and you wi

[TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
 
I think the attachment is a Word 
Perfect file.  I had troubles also.  Boyd is 'one of my boys'.  I 
highly enjoyed 'Repenting of Religion' but most of all find comfort in Boyd's 
attempts at understanding suffering and evil (and he is one of the few 
Trinitarians who takes on spiritual warfare).  While at the end of the 
day I would probably reject Open Theism I wholeheartedly appreciate its 
attempts at challenging our ideas of suffering, prayer, and knowledge.  
There is much in the Open view of God that is worth hearing and 
digesting.
 
Jonathan lurking at Lance's 
desk  
Hi Jonathan & Lance - Sorry G. - they 
couldn't open it :).  Actually it was Lance I was referring to as I know he 
likes Gregory Boyd who apparently isn't only into Open Theism - he also promotes 
the Perichoresis dance.  I don't disagree with his thesis that 
unconditional love is where it's at - only with his methods of how to get from 
here to there.   I thought this Review interesting, WDYT?  
judyt
 
ALL YOU NEED IS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
A Judgmental Assessment of Judgmentalism is predictably 
full of Contradictions
Reviewed by John Wilson - From Christianity Today 
2-10-05
It must have sounded like 
a suitably edgy title: Repenting of Religion. Why on earth, the slightly 
shocked reader is supposed to ask, of all the things to be repentant about, 
should we repent of religion?
Because, Gregory Boyd explains, springing the trap, 
religion is all about "getting life from the rightness of our behavior," a 
fatally delusive sense of self-satisfaction sustained by perpetually judging 
others and finding them wanting.
Such judgment, Boyd arguesbased on his 
Bonhoeffer-influenced reading of Genesisis in fact the primal sin from which 
all other sins derive. Yet most evangelical churches, the senior pastor of 
Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, writes, utterly fail to recognize 
this; indeed, their very identity depends on sinful, self-righteous judgment. 
And while evangelicals are particularly egregious in this regard, the whole 
church stands indicted: "What we shall find is that, as has been the case with 
almost all religions throughout history, the Christian religion has to a 
significant extent become the defender of and promoter of the Fall rather than 
the proclaimer of the Good News that alone can free us from the 
Fall."
And again, this is the verdict Boyd renders on "large 
segments of the body of Christ": "Tragically, they promote the essence of the 
Fall as though it were salvation." The remedy, as Boyd's subtitle indicates, is 
to turn from judgment to unconditional love: "The only conclusion about other 
people that God allows us and commands us to embrace is the one given to us on 
Calvary: People have unsurpassable worth because Jesus died for 
them."
It is the business of "each believer" to "focus on his or 
her own relationship with God. Rather than being concerned with whether others 
are walking in faith, we each should be concerned with whether we ourselves are 
walking in faith." (There is a place for "appropriate judgment," Boyd allows, 
but only among disciples who are in "intimate contexts in which people have 
invited one another into their livescontexts such as the small house churches 
all first-century Christians participated in"where it takes the form of 
"discernment and loving feedback.")
So far does the policy of nonintervention extend, Boyd 
tells us, "the church must always remember that it has no business confronting 
people outside the covenant community, even leaders of other religious groups 
who are leading people astray." After all, Jesus "did not confront religious 
leaders in other cultures and religions; his concern was only with religious 
leaders who were thwarting God's will within God's covenant community at that 
time."
Perhaps these quotations from Boyd's book will suggest 
what a strange brew it is, a book riven by self-contradictions and flawed by a 
hermeneutic so naïve it beggars belief. Railing against judgment, Boyd issues 
sweeping judgments against the church throughout its entire historyjudgments 
that rest almost entirely on sheer assertion.
In evangelical churches, Boyd claims, "the sins we 
declare ourselves to be against are invariably selected to not target 
ourselves." Really? In the church where my wife and I are members, Faith 
Evangelical Covenant Church in Wheaton, Illinoisas in all the churches we have 
regularly attendedthe sins our pastor warns us against are as mundane and 
deadly as those illuminated in The Screwtape Letters.
Boyd caricatures the evangelical response to 
homosexuality, quite sure in his judgment that what motivates evangelicals on 
this issue is simply a sinful desire to feel morally superior. He refuses to 
extend to them the understanding he chastises them for failing to extend to 
others, understanding that comes only when we "get on the inside of their 
stories."
Mocking other Christians for their "system" of evalua

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Thanks for the answer, David. Why do you think 
Jesus did not say, "And for their sakes I give them the example of myself, that 
they also may be sanctified by truth"? He said that sort of thing at other 
times, but not here. Instead he said, "And for their sakes I 
SANCTIFY Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." I 
agree with what you say pertaining to the word of truth being the sanctifying 
agent (along with the Holy Spirit of course) as far as we are concerned. But why 
in Jesus' case must it be any different? It was in and through the 
sanctification of his own humanity via these things that he defeated sin, death, 
and the devil, -- in other words, he is much more than an example to us -- 
and this in order that we might now be in a position of being able to be 
sanctified by the Truth through the work of the Spirit in our lives. Do you 
understand the distinction I am drawing and what I mean when I make it? Tell me 
what you think of it.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:06 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
Sin
> Bill Taylor wrote:> > Hey, David, would you tell me how 
you> > interpret Jesus' words in the following> > verses 
(feel free to draw from a larger> > context if you like)?> 
>> > John17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth.> > Your word 
is truth."> > John 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify> > 
Myself, that they also may be sanctified by> > the truth."> 
> In a nutshell, this passage teaches us that the word of God is truth, 
and it > changes our hearts from that with which we were born.  It 
causes us to be > set apart as a peculiar people, a spiritual people, 
holy before God.  This > transformation occurs as we hear his word 
and believe his word, which is > what trusting in Christ is.  This 
passage also speaks about Jesus being our > perfect example.  He 
walked in this sanctifying process first, before us, > that we also might 
be sanctified by the truth.  It is by seeing how this > worked 
itself out in the life of Christ that we know that we can do it too, > 
and we can know what kind of response we will get in the world as we walk 
> like this.  This is the power of the incarnation.> > 
We might also observe here that it is not some magical work of Christ that 
> sanctifies us, but rather we are sanctified by the word of truth that 
finds > root in our hearts.  We are sanctified in the same way that 
Jesus was > sanctified -- by the word of truth.> > 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





I wrote  >  
Instead humanity was purified in relationship with God 
in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the humanity 
"becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God through the 
things he suffered. 
 
jt: How do we learn obedience 
by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to learn all over 
again as God prunes us?
 
For the limited sake of this discussion I 
should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity 
was purified in relationship with his divinity in 
Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the 
way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of learning 
obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have been easier 
for you to understand. 
 
Nevertheless, in that he is go'el, when he 
defeated sin, death, and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he 
defeated it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in 
that his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject 
him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from 
the Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not eternal 
life, but the second death, for which their is no 
salvation.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
  sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
  the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
   
  jt: ... If I were writing about the 
  subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
  that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
  RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
   
  BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
  rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
  heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  
   
  BT: I will point out once again the 
  deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
  not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
  form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
  not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and 
  partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been 
  otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could 
  somehow be tainted by his humanity 
   
  "that God 
  (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the 
  rest of fallen humanity"
   
   But you only 
  think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms 
  of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is 
  nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it 
  is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has 
  some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 
  Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin 
  Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a 
  union -- the union of two natures coming 
  together in one person: fully God, fully man. 
  
   
  jt: I don't relate to the 
  "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
  incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  
  I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst 
  us.  ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
  a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 
  
   
  This idea is not 
  difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
  Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we 
  would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that 
  we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new 
  divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks 
  can only be understood relationally, like a husband and a wife come together 
  to make one flesh. They do not become an alloy, a new kind of substance; they 
  become a union. 
   
  jt: A husband and wife come 
  together

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 11:12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


>"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !! 
> 
>
=
   Woe is us !!


Yes, indeed.   That does seem to be case.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin





Yes - I agree with you - 
Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans 
have.  The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born 
with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was 
dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the 
Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive  "a 
measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our 
human spirit passes from death to life).  Any 
problems?
 
Yes, big problems. You are making Jesus 
something other than human when you insist that he was equipped with things in 
his humanity that we are not in ours (i.e., a spirit that was alive to God 
whereas ours was dead), and then equip us with something in our humanity that he 
did not experience in his own person (i.e., a nature subject to the 
fall). 
 
Now humanity is a new creation in Christ's 
resurrection, born from above. And we receive the Holy Spirit if 
and when we believe the good news of our 
salvation. 
 
The spiritual-death thing can be pitched, 
because it is not a biblical concept. Jesus was alive to the things of God and 
so are we (because he defeated the powers which kept us in bondage), 
and if and when we stop believing the lies of this world and 
its father and believe instead in the good news of our salvation, we are able to 
respond to our Father in heaven, because he sends us the Spirit of Christ with 
which to guide us.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:09 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:00:03 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his 
  sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of 
  the obscurity of his definition for this word. 
   
  jt: ... If I were writing about the 
  subject today I would not even bother with all that and I'm not even sure 
  that I like the "Original Sin" subject line since so many equate this with the 
  RCC and Augustine or whoever it was who came up with the term.
   
  BT: That's fine with me Judy, preferable even. I 
  rarely use the term for the same reason; it just so happened that it is the 
  heading someone(?) chose to use for this thread, that's all.
   
  Do you find it ironic Bill that we 
  get into this controversy over whether or not Jesus was born with the old 
  Adamic sin and death taint on him (like us) on the one hand and then argue 
  over whether or not he was "Emmanuel" (God with us) - on the other which is 
  the same as saying that God (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's 
  nature along with the rest of fallen humanity?  
   
  BT: I will point out once again the 
  deficiency in your thinking via your question above. The person of "Jesus" was 
  not an amalgomization in the sense that his two natures came together to 
  form a new alloy, like copper and zinc do in forming brass. His two nature did 
  not fuse to become a different kind of new substance, partly God and 
  partly man, similar yet disimilar from what they both would have been 
  otherwise. This is what you propose above: that the divinity of Jesus could 
  somehow be tainted by his humanity 
   
  "that God 
  (Emmanuel) has now taken on Satan's nature along with the 
  rest of fallen humanity"
   
   But you only 
  think this way because you are thinking of Jesus in terms 
  of an alloy. But your idea of Jesus is 
  nothing other than the syncretism Greek mythology with Christianity; it 
  is their idea of a demigod that you are upholding, Jesus being "the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has 
  some but not all of the powers of a god" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 
  Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin 
  Company). The person of Jesus was not an alloy; he is a 
  union -- the union of two natures coming 
  together in one person: fully God, fully man. 
  
   
  jt: I don't relate to the 
  "alloy" idea or syncretism. I understand God to be a Spirit and before the 
  incarnation the person of Jesus was the Word of God - also Spirit.  
  I don't have a problem with the Word becoming flesh and dwelling amongst 
  us.  ATST I don't see Jesus as the union of two natures; I see Him as 
  a representation of the Father in the earth and His nature as divine. 
  
   
  This idea is not 
  difficult to grasp, if you will allow yourself to think of it in terms of a 
  Hebrew concept and not through your Greek grid. When Jesus prayed that we 
  would be one with him as he is one with his Father, he was not suggesting that 
  we would somehow become little gods, that we would be a new 
  divine substance similar to God. No, the "one" to which he speaks 
  can only be understood relationally, like a husband an

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  I wrote  
  >  Instead humanity was purified in relationship 
  with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the 
  humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God 
  through the things he suffered. 
   
  jt: How do we learn 
  obedience by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to 
  learn all over again when God prunes us personally?
   
  For the limited sake of this discussion I 
  should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his humanity 
  was purified in relationship with his divinity in 
  Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeated all along the 
  way, and the his humanity 'becoming perfected' in the process of 
  learning obedience to God through the things he suffered." That would have 
  been easier for you to understand. 
   
  Nevertheless, in that 
  he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, and the 
  devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated it in all 
  humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that his 
  victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject him as 
  our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out from the 
  Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not eternal 
  life, but the second death, for which their is no salvation.   
  Bill
   
  jt: If I remember correctly 
  Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is important to 
  you.  But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated sin, death, and 
  the devil.  Yes he did have victory over them in His own life and 
  this is an example to us - But it is the cross that is the power of God 
  and from the cross we receive power to overcome these things in our own 
  lives.   When he ascended he gave gifts to men and it 
  is when we 
  receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons of God. (John 
  1:12)
   
  Is this different from what 
  you are saying above?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




Is this different from what 
you are saying above?
 
Yes, but never mind. I love you, Judy.
 
Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original 
  Sin
  
   
   
  On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:48:48 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

I wrote  
>  Instead humanity was purified in relationship 
with God in Christ's person throughout his life, the tyrants being defeating all along the way, and the 
humanity "becoming perfected" in the process of learning obedience to God 
through the things he suffered. 
 
jt: How do we learn 
obedience by what HE suffered?  If this is so then why do we have to 
learn all over again when God prunes us personally?
 
For the limited sake of this discussion 
I should have been more specific and just said that "Instead his 
humanity was purified in relationship with his 
divinity in Christ's person throughout his life, the 
tyrants being defeated all along the way, and the his humanity 
'becoming perfected' in the process of learning obedience to God through the 
things he suffered." That would have been easier for you to understand. 

 
Nevertheless, in 
that he is go'el, when he defeated sin, death, 
and the devil in his humanity in resurrection, he defeated 
it in all humanity. The only way now for those things to destroy us, in that 
his victorious resurrection will not be ours to share, would be to reject 
him as our Lord and Savior. If we do that, our names will be blotted out 
from the Lambs book of life and in resurrection we will experience, not 
eternal life, but the second death, for which their is no 
salvation.   Bill
 
jt: If I remember 
correctly Bill the go'el concept relates to Ruth and Boaz and this is 
important to you.  But it was not in his humanity that Jesus defeated 
sin, death, and the devil.  Yes he did have victory over them in 
His own life and this is an example to us - But it is the cross that is 
the power of God and from the cross we receive power to overcome these 
things in our own lives.   When he ascended he gave gifts to men 
and it is when we receive Him that we receive the POWER TO BECOME sons 
of God. (John 1:12)
 
Is this different from 
what you are saying above?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin




 
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:05:26 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 
jt: Yes - I agree with you - 
Jesus was born with a human spirit inside his human body like all humans 
have.  The difference between him and the rest of us is that he was born 
with a human spirit that was alive to God (with no breach) whereas ours was 
dead. Jesus walked in the fullness of the Holy Spirit - We are born void of the 
Spirit (which is something the world can not receive) but we do receive  "a 
measure" when we are born again or born of the spirit (and this is when our 
human spirit passes from death to life).  Any 
problems?
 
bt: Yes, big problems. You are making Jesus something other than human when you insist that he was 
equipped with things in his humanity that we are not in ours (i.e., a spirit 
that was alive to God whereas ours was dead), and then equip 
us with something in our humanity that he did not 
experience in his own person (i.e., a nature subject to the 
fall). 
 
jt: Do you believe the first 
Adam was "something other than human" also?  He had a human spirit that was 
alive to God since he fellowshipped with Him in the cool of the day.  What 
I am saying is that Jesus had the same human nature as the first Adam (before 
the fall) - and that he overcame in his personal life the areas where the first 
Adam fell (during the temptation in the wilderness). Yes Jesus  did 
experience our fallenness along with every sin you can and cannot imagine during 
those hours of darkness on the cross and this is the ONLY time he 
was separated from the Father ever - and this because of 
us.
 
Now humanity is a new creation in Christ's 
resurrection, born from above. And we receive the Holy Spirit if 
and when we believe the good news of our 
salvation. 
 
jt: Not "humanity" per 
se.  Only those who receive Him receive the POWER TO BECOME a son of 
God.  Just believing won't do much - because even the devils believe and 
tremble - Also remember Jesus' prayer in John 17? He wasn't praying for the 
world, only the ones God had given to him and those who would believe through 
them.
 
Jesus was alive to the things of God and 
so are we (because he defeated 
the powers which kept us in bondage), and if and when we stop 
believing the lies of this world and its father and believe instead in 
the good news of our salvation, we are able to 
respond to our Father in heaven, because he sends us the Spirit of Christ with 
which to guide us.
 
jt: We are not born into this 
world "alive to God" Bill, in fact we are dead in trespasses and sin (see Eph 
2)  Jesus was never ever "dead in trespasses and sin" other than during 
that 3hrs on the cross.  Yes he defeated principalities and powers but 
there are many who "believe" the good news who are still just as bound by them 
as they were before they believed.  So why is that?

RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior










 
  
  sod·om·ite
     (sd-mt)
  n. 
  One who engages in
  sodomy.
  
 



 
  
  
  Main Entry: sod·om·ite
  Pronunciation: -"mIt
  Function: noun
  : one who practices sodomy 
  
 








sodomite

n : someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male
who engages in anal copulation with another male) 

 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
2:29 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior



 


This is why I like Gary.   He and at least three
others on this list, is smarter than I.  I was thinking that a Sodomite was someone from Sodom but the Professor
put it into words better than I could  (man, I like being humble !). 
JD   and thanks for the post, G.  


In a message dated 2/11/2005 10:08:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





that the term 'sodomites', below,
includes purveyors of perversions such as gossip and gluttony reinforces a
biblical learning curve, Terry
  
'sodomite' actually reads as a
reference to those who dwelt in Sodom,
where, acc to Scripture, there were numerous/various injustices
  
E.g., Sodom's description by the Prophets suggests
a meaning for 'sodomite' which involves an array of exclusive cosmopolitan
activities, a general corruption way beyond disfunctional and antisocial
behaviors involving sexual disorder, deviance, etc.
  
IOW, the term below has been
emptied of its biblical meaning and made to be extremely pejorative by
design--notice to whom it is subtly applied on TT (including its archives) 

..the SP 'world view'
incorporates and intensifies certain cultural stereotypes partic for shotgun
homiletical effect/s, a characteristic of 'knowing minus learning' style
hermeneutics.. 
  
G
  










<><><><><>

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin









J  Can we
hear an Amen?  Iz

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
9:11 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin



 



This reminds me, I found the rest of the
saying ... :)





Architects cover their mistakes with
paint





Doctors cover their mistakes with sod,





Brides cover their mistakes with
mayonaise





Hypocrites cover themselves with ritual





Theologians cover themselves with words





(Should I add Greek ones?)

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin









 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
10:33 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin



 

In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.



Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered
intellectual.  

JD


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are
coming  !!   "

 

Spare us,
and send the Redcoats instead. Iz

Re: [TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos

In a message dated 2/11/2005 10:03:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


  I tried but the link wouldnât work.  Next time.

  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:20 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] pastor acquitted re: homos


  

Moderator's Note:


  


Since people have plenty of private access to these stories in myriad internet sources, please briefly summarize such 'news' and post it with a reference link included--that will be sufficient to communicate your interest to us.


  


Thank you.


  


G


  


On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:54 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


 
From WorldNetDaily.com:

 ||




G,
Izzy takes time to write whatever but does not take orders.  You should know this by now.  

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior


This is why I like Gary.   He and at least three others on this list, is smarter than I.  I was thinking that a Sodomite was someone from Sodom but the Professor put it into words better than I could  (man, I like being humble !).  JD   and thanks for the post, G.  


In a message dated 2/11/2005 10:08:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


that the term 'sodomites', below, includes purveyors of perversions such as gossip and gluttony reinforces a biblical learning curve, Terry
  
'sodomite' actually reads as a reference to those who dwelt in Sodom, where, acc to Scripture, there were numerous/various injustices
  
E.g., Sodom's description by the Prophets suggests a meaning for 'sodomite' which involves an array of exclusive cosmopolitan activities, a general corruption way beyond disfunctional and antisocial behaviors involving sexual disorder, deviance, etc.
  
IOW, the term below has been emptied of its biblical meaning and made to be extremely pejorative by design--notice to whom it is subtly applied on TT (including its archives) 
 
..the SP 'world view' incorporates and intensifies certain cultural stereotypes partic for shotgun homiletical effect/s, a characteristic of 'knowing minus learning' style hermeneutics.. 
  
 G

RE: [TruthTalk] weekly perverty report from Salt lake

Anyone live in a city worse than this?
 
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2565409
For the Record 






Figure in BYU rape case enters no-contest plea   A peripheral defendant in the Brigham Young University rape case has entered a no-contest plea to making false statements to police. Former football player Antwaun Harris' plea will be held in abeyance for six months and then dismissed if he meets the conditions of the agreement, which include testifying against the other defendants. Harris, 18, was initially charged in 4th District Court with a second-degree felony for falsely telling police there was no pornographic material being shown when a 17-year-old girl was allegedly gang raped by four other football players. The alleged victim claims she was given vodka, shown a pornographic DVD and sexually assaulted on Aug. 8.   Gospel teacher waives hearing in child sex
 abuse case     A Mormon children's gospel teacher accused of fondling nine young girls - some of them while attending his class in Syracuse - on Friday waived his right to a preliminary hearing. Aaron Marcos Montoya, 32, is charged in 2nd District Court with 10 first-degree felony counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Montoya - who is on administrative leave from his job as a Salt 














Advertisement 















  Lake County Sheriff's Office bailiff at the Matheson Courthouse - is set for a scheduling hearing Thursday before Judge Thomas Kay.   Man convicted of shaking baby is denied new trial   A man convicted of murder for shaking a baby boy who died 12 years later has been denied a new trial. Warren Clifford Hales, 44, went to prison last year for the 1997 death of Luther Deems. Hales violently shook   the boy in 1985, when he was 5 months old, according to prosecutors. Judge J. Dennis Frederick recently rejected Hales' assertion that the defense was denied access to CT scans of the victim's brain. Frederick also rejected claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.
 
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:









 
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
 
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.
Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  JD"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   "
 
Spare us, and send the Redcoats instead. Iz
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo!  Try it today!

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior




ftr, anothr near 
perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o 
learning' style of intepretation:
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:08:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  


  
sod·om·ite 
   (sd-mt)n. 

One who 
engages in sodomy.
  


  
Main Entry: sod·om·itePronunciation: 
-"mItFunction: noun: one who practices sodomy 
  
  sodomite
  n : someone who engages 
  in..
<><><><><>

Re: [TruthTalk] weekly perverty report from Salt lake




thanks for the post--pls help 
us to reduce both @innglory.org mailbox and bandwidth consumption on your 
own, without a moderator's remindr--yes, i'm dispensible 
baby
 
G
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:51:06 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Anyone live in a city 
  worse than this?
   
  http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2565409

Re: [TruthTalk] weekly perverty report from Salt lake

15k that is a biggie!
Just exactly how large is the bandwidth available to TT?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


thanks for the post--pls help us to reduce both @innglory.org mailbox and bandwidth consumption on your own, without a moderator's remindr--yes, i'm dispensible baby
 
G
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:51:06 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Anyone live in a city worse than this?
 
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2565409

		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In the TRADITION of the Nazi UUberman who called Genocide the "Final Solution"
We now call Sodomites "gay" We've come a long way baby.
Are you for softening the words for Fornication, murder, theft also?
One commandants wife liked to have men who had tattoo's;
 skined alive so she coukld have the skins tanned for lampshades, purses, and shoes
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:








ftr, anothr near perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o learning' style of intepretation:
 
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:08:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:






sod·om·ite    (sd-mt)n. 
One who engages in sodomy.




Main Entry: sod·om·itePronunciation: -"mItFunction: noun: one who practices sodomy 

sodomite
n : someone who engages in..__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   
There goes the nieghborhood[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2005 3:09:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary your hatred is thinkly veiled.Of course it is thinkly veiled.   Gary, af all, is a mild mannered intellectual.  JD"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   "
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

WOW all that to find out that PARTAKE means to UBS Lexicon:    metecho -- share in (something) ... 
Friberg Lexicon:    metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. 
Go Figure !
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Thanks, John. But you'd better leave your Robertson's at HOME! It might get misplaced along the way.
 
Bill

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin
Biil      never tire of offering your opinion on these matters.   A very beneficial post.   Your lexical aides are interesting.   When we get together, I will bring my 1935  A.T, Robertson Greek grammar  --- we can stand above the book, holding lite candles  and hum or something !!   Cool.  JDIn a message dated 2/11/2005 7:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
    
As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."  In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self"  The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.  When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception  Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now. I am wondering, do you have the source for the above quotation, where you say that metecho means "'to take part but not all'"? If so, I would be
 interested in knowing who or what it is. Did this come from a lexicon or is it from someone's commentary, like Dake perhaps, or is it something else? I know now that you do not like to add words to Scripture, like saying that "likeness" means "similar" and stuff like that, and so I thought I should just ask you where you got this, as none of my lexicons or other linguistic helps draw that same distinction. The following is a sampling of what I have on this word:Friberg Lexicon:    metecho -- (have a) share in, participate in, partake of, w. the sharing always resulting fr. choosing to participate. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:    metecho --
 to partake of, share in (meta, with, echo, to have), akin to ... in Heb. 2.14, the KJV "took part of" is awkward; Christ "partook of" flesh and blood, R.V. UBS Lexicon:    metecho -- share in (something) ... Louw-Nida Lexicon:    metecho -- (a) share in ... Liddell-Scott Lexicon:   metecho -- to partake of, enjoy a share of, share in, take part in; to partake of ; to be members of ; to partake of something in common w. another BAGD Lexicon: metecho -- to have a part or share in something; share, have a share, participate ... "He shared the same things, i.e., flesh and blood -- Hb. 2:14." Reinecker &Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament: "The _expression_ 'flesh and blood' was the Hebrew designation for 'men' or 'human beings.' ... Meteschen aorist, active, indicative of metecho -- to have, to
 participate in, to share. The aorist tense points to the historic event of the Incarnation when the Son of God assumed this same human nature and thus himself became truly man and accordingly one with mankind" (670). Do you see what I mean about your definition being distinctly different than these?If you still have it, I would also like to know your source for the following statement, too: "The word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.'" Is this from the same source as your other quote? Do you think, in accordance with Reinecker and Rogers, that this "taking part in something outside of one's self" could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the
 eternal/divine Logos became a human being? Surely that was something outside of his former self. As per Friberg, there he chose to partake of something that he was not prior to the Incarnation, namely, flesh and blood.  What does your source say? Our discussion put me in mind of this verse: "For you know the grace of

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

Be on guard against any tampering with the Word, whether disguised as a search for truth, or a scholarly attempt at apparently hidden meanings; and beware of the confusion created by the senseless rash of new versions, translations, editions, and improvements upon the tried and tested Bible of our fathers and grandfathers. 
Martin R DeHaan
I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE GUILTY OF BEING OVERAMBITIOUS IN EARNESTLY 'CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH' (JUDE 3) THAN TO BE GUILTY OF COMPROMISE FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING OTHERS" (Bible Versions and Perversions. p. 31 1962 M R DeHaan).
TURN FROM THOSE WHICH ARE THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF DOUBT, AND TURN TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION WHICH IS THE PRODUCTION OF AN AGE OF FAITH. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS RELIABLE BECAUSE IT TELLS US AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, and not what some galaxy of scholars (who, however learned, are but mortals like ourselves) think it ought to say" (IBID p. 26).
He was a gravelly voiced KJV FUNDAMENTALIST preacher
Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








Never mind, Judy, I found it. Your statement is the opinion of a preacher named Dr. DeHaan of the Radio Bible Class, but he doesn't give his sources either. It seems like he should have told you (and by extension us) of the obscurity of his definition for this word. 

He wrote: "In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' 

JT  > Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."
 
He wrote: You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' 
 
JT  > In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same. 
 
He wrote: The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. 
 
JT > The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.
 
He wrote: In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' 
 
JT > The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self" 
 
He wrote: The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. 
 
JT > The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.
 
He wrote: When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception." 
 

JT  >  When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood
 was the result of supernatural conception
 
 I wonder what Bible this DeHaan uses? Do you have any idea? That would be interesting to know.
 
 Bill

 

- Original Message - 
From: Bill Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin









As it relates to the current discussion on the human nature of our Lord, Judy wrote   >   Jesus partook of human flesh without partaking of the effect of Adam's blood.  Heb 2:14 says "forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same."

 
In this verse the "children" that is, the human children are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He himself likewise took part of the same.  The word "took part" as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from "partakers" as applied to the children.  The word translated "took part" implies "taking part in something outside one's self"  The Greek word for parkakers is KOYNOHENO and means to "share fully" so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood.
 
When we read that JESUS "took part of the same" the word is METECHO which means "to take part but not all" The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part,
 whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception
 
Hi, Judy. I realize that the above statement was made sometime ago, but since we are back on the subject of Jesus' humanity, and since I didn't bring it up at the time, I thought I would go ahead and ask you a couple questions now

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

First off I am not a Church of Christ Cultist
Unity is not arrived at by Cult or Evangelical consensus!
As far as a list like I said very simple learned it in Sunday school ( I can have my Sunday chool teacher come over to help you.)
The B I B L E now thats the list for me, I stand alone on the word of God the B I B L E !
Of course you won't accept this, you want me to tell you which particular vitamins are important. They are ALL important. Gods book is not pick & choose You need all of it. The readers Digest version won't do NASB won't do the scholars have excised whole verses out of it. A diet without all the building blocks leaves one sick!
Jesus Loves me this I know for the BIBLE tells me so!
Throughly furnished with God's word! Do not need a "scholarly" brain drain. They make things so complex, but then again if we want to really know what partake means they can tell us. So profound partake means partake.
1 Co 1 :10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/11/2005 6:06:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is readily available[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you miss it?What is so important about this list? Are you a LEGALIST need a bunch of rules?You act like your ready to gloat cause you think there is no such thing. Yet it exists, is right in front of your face but you can't see it.You won't follow the rules anyway why have a cow?Your inability to supply such a list has proven your theology on this point to be an utter waist.John Back in the day when I, too, was a legalist, Kevin, I could have given you a list. No problem. I was raised in a legalistic faith by folks who were doing the best that they could do they were just legalists. Anyone who believes that Unity in the Faith is non-existent apart from "speaking and thinking the same thing" (as
extended to a specific set of teachings) is a legalist. You are not the first person to whom I have asked this question. I have had a number of battles with my own brethren (Church of Christ) over this very issue. When asked for the list, they too, balked, as you have. JD
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

Those within treat like they are without
Those without don't let in your house neither bid them god bless
God obviously puts a wall of separation between believers and unbelievers
 
First of all heresy and false doctrine are sin also
Titus 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
 
The last time we talked about this I was not able to come up with excommunication for false doctrine??? maybe you were involved with someone else. 
 
Consider them as heathen MT 18 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
AVOID False Doctrine is contagious RM 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
WITHDRAW from those Following Wrong tradition 2 Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
CHARGE them that they stop Titus 1 that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
WITHDRAW from Blasphemous Doctrine  1Tim 6 that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness... from such withdraw thyself
DONT LET THEM IN  2Jn 1 For many deceivers are entered into the world...If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin wrote:> Are you familiar with the Doctrine of separation?Yes, but it probably is not the same as the doctrine of separation that you embrace.Kevin wrote:> 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.There is a difference in how separation is practiced among believers and among those who are not believers. It seems to me that some of the Corinthians misunderstood the doctrine of separation in the same way that you misunderstand it. Consider the following passage where Paul clarifies how this separation is to be practiced:1 Corinthians 5:9-13(9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:(10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
 covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.(11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.(12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?(13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.Therefore, we see here that a different attitude is taken toward a brother in Christ who continues in sin, and those in the world who have not yet believed upon Christ. There is a form of toleration that we ought to practice as we evangelize the world.Note also that the last time we discussed this on TruthTalk, you never were able to come up with a passage that shows that believers should excommunicate anyone
 for embracing a false doctrine. Excommunication appears to be a form of discipline for believers who continue to sin, but not a form of discipline for false teaching. False teachers are dealt with by correcting them, and if they fail to change their error, marking them.Kevin wrote:> ... 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.You need to rethink this. The Torah makes mention of strangers many times, and it often gives laws that allow certain things to be done with those outside of the Covenant versus those inside the Covenant (e.g., loaning with interest, slavery, etc.). I know that you are probably thinking of the command to kill everyone, but that is not the whole story.Now in the church, we should make sure that we fellowship
 only with those in the Covenant. That is what church is for. Therefore, there is a different level of separation going on in regards to the church than there is in a public forum like TruthTalk or a classroom at a public high school or college.Kevin wrote:> Is this optional? And have no fellowship with the> unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove> them.I consider "reproof" to be a form of tolerance when contrasted with burning people at the stake. Maybe we are talking a

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/12/2005 7:33:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

First off I am not a Church of Christ Cultist
Actually, I see very little difference between your cultish behavior and that of the C of C  --  southern division. 

  
Unity is not arrived at by Cult or Evangelical consensus!  Great  -- I agree.   So how is its arrival varified?  Now be careful , here.   You are getting a second chance from the Smithmeister.   If you answer correctly,  the Meister will not have to resort to the "list attack."   We all know how impotent your defense was the first time around.   What is the basis for Christian fellowship?  
  
As far as a list like I said very simple learned it in Sunday school ( I can have my Sunday chool teacher come over to help you.)
 The B I B L E now thats the list for me, I stand alone on the word of God the B I B L E !
  
Of course you won't accept this, you want me to tell you which particular vitamins are important. They are ALL important. Gods book is not pick &choose You need all of it. The readers Digest version won't do NASB won't do the scholars have excised whole verses out of it. A diet without all the building blocks leaves one sick!  Are you writing this or are you just wondering around in your room talking to yourself?
  
Jesus Loves me this I know for the BIBLE tells me so!
  
Throughly furnished with God's word! Do not need a "scholarly" brain drain. Well, you have certainly proven this point  --   and a fine testimony to anti-intellectualism you are.   I mean, after listening to you for, h, a couple of minutes,  one not only sees little value in Continuation Schooling, one sees little point is bullhorn discussions.   We have a Continuation School over by the High School.  They make things so complex, but then again if we want to really know what partake means they can tell us. So profound partake means partake.  You know, Kev, when I was growing up, nearly all my Sunday School teachers were like you.   I would ask, "What does [such and such passage mean]?" and they would say,  "It speaks for itself."   The reason why they did this  --  I found out after becoming a [real] man  --  was THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE PASSAGE MEANT.   You have come back to this discussion group, but not to discuss --  only to yell and scream your admittedly uneducated tripe and hope that you "save" someone.   Your plan is right on schedule.  We all feel closer to the Lord because of your efforts.  Do I hear a group "amen?"    
  
1 Co 1 :10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Easy to quote scripture, isn't it?  In the above, are the brethren currently speaking the same things?   Are there currently [at the time of the writing] no divisions?  When Paul encourages for a unity based on "the same mind and  the same judgment,"  do you think that I am against such?   The II Tim passage  --  is there some reason why you quoted this passage?

Re: [TruthTalk] Original Sin

In a message dated 2/12/2005 6:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


"The intellectuals are coming;   the intellectuals are coming  !!   
There goes the nieghborhood [sic]



Written like a true anti-intellectual.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior

In a message dated 2/12/2005 5:28:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

They deceive themselves and they will deceive you.

Terry  --   I have some experience with gay types as well  --  almost none of them were criminals, however.   But about the above     ain't going to happen.  

JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Cult behavior









Complain to Mr. Webster. 

 









From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005
6:09 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cult
behavior



 



ftr, anothr near
perfect example of anti-intellectualism in a 'knowing w/o
learning' style of intepretation:





 





On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:08:48 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:






 
  
  sod·om·ite
     (sd-mt)
  n. 
  One who engages in
  sodomy.
  
 



 
  
  
  Main Entry: sod·om·ite
  Pronunciation: -"mIt
  Function: noun
  : one who practices sodomy 
  
 


 

sodomite

n : someone who engages in..








<><><><><>

RE: [TruthTalk] Original Sin