Re: [TruthTalk] Mars as an aside
Actually, it does mention a magnification (75). I think the article is trying to say that at a magnification of 75, the planet will appear large as the moonappears to the naked eye. A very poorly written article at that point. Jd-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:03:52 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mars as an aside DAVEH: Hey John.I don't think you have to worry about Mars appearing as large as the full moon to the naked eye...somebody is pulling your leg!http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: The Planet Mars MarsThe Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close isin 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again. The encounter will culminate on August 27th whenMars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth andwill be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest75-power magnification /FONTMar s will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. Mars will be easy to spot. At thebeginning of August it will rise in the east at 10p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m. By the end of August when the two planets areclosest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's prettyconvenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar atthe beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month. Share this with your children and grandchildr en. NO ONE ALIVE TODAY WILL EVER SEE THIS AGAIN -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Why are you so focused on the "demon" aspect JD. I say - according to Deuteronomy 27 that cancer belongs in the category of "curse" rather than "blessing" - would you agree or are you under the impression that cancer is a blessing from the Lord? Once we get things in the right categorythen we should ask ourselves where this is fromsince all GOOD things come from above from the Father of Lights in whom is no degree of shadow or turning. If it is not good then it does not come from the Father above - So where does it come from -where is it's origin - and why is it there??That is if you are interested. judyt On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:41:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sending this to TT as an illustration of a Christian having to deal with a physical issue that some would credit to a demon spirit. Judy seems to think that any "evil" is the result of a demon (i.e. "demon lust"). I am thinking that such a general definition of a "demon" might prevent some from identifying a true demon possession. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to demonic possession and what isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it in my bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists. Only a legalist would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for lists or formulas. the "nine spiritual gifts" is not a complete list -- but legalists treat that list as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on what is available in terms of "gifts." And so we have the theology of a legalist -- steeped in the "rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations and the like.
JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:24:34 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Why are you so focused on the "demon" aspect JD. I say - according to Deuteronomy 27 that cancer
belongs in the category of "curse" rather than "blessing" - would you agree or are you under the impression that
cancer is a blessing from the Lord? Once we get things in the right categorythen we should ask ourselves where
this is fromsince all GOOD things come from above from the Father of Lights in whom is no degree of shadow
or turning. If it is not good then it does not come from the Father above - So where does it come from -where
is it's origin - and why is it there??That is if you are interested. judyt
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:41:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sending this to TT as an illustration of a Christian having to deal with a physical issue that some would credit to a demon spirit.
Judy seems to think that any "evil" is the result of a demon (i.e. "demon lust"). I am thinking that such a general definition of a "demon" might prevent some from identifying a true demon possession.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Two categories JD
1. Blessing (listed in Deuteronomy
28)
2. Curse (listed in Deuteronomy 27)
You need to study these two chapters and get some
clarity about these issues JD. It is God's Word
not mine. I've noticed that the ones who
criticize and complain seldom have even one spiritual gift
operating through them let alone nine. How many
more do you need and where are you going to
conjure them up from JD?
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:43:23 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why
notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning the
various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to
demonic possession and what
isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it
in my bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists. Only a
legalist would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for lists or formulas. the "nine spiritual gifts" is not a
complete list -- but legalists treat that list as if it were
intended to be a definitive statement on what is available in terms of "gifts." And so we have the theology of a legalist -- steeped in the "rational" and logical,
full of lists and formula's and dispensations and the like.
JD -Original
Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:24:34 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs
Curses
Why are you so focused on the "demon" aspect JD. I
say - according to Deuteronomy 27 that cancer
belongs in the category of "curse" rather than
"blessing" - would you agree or are you under the impression that
cancer is a blessing from the Lord? Once we get
things in the right categorythen we should ask ourselves
where
this is fromsince all GOOD things come from
above from the Father of Lights in whom is no degree of shadow
or turning. If it is not good then it does not
come from the Father above - So where does it come from -where
is it's origin - and why
is it there??That is if you are interested. judyt
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:41:49 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am sending this to TT
as an illustration of a Christian having to deal with a physical issue that
some would credit to a demon spirit.
Judy seems to think that any "evil" is the result of a demon
(i.e. "demon lust"). I am thinking that such a general
definition of a "demon" might prevent some from identifying a true demon
possession.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace
Moderator(s) : I am not going to make this a habit, but this post presets some numbers that I was unfamilar with (i,.e, total cost of war) and goes to discussions we have had in the past. JD As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date.Take another look at that sum.What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq?Well, . . .We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units.We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start.We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans.We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year.We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students.We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years.We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years.According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding.The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million.Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless.It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace!I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about "fighting terrorism."But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets?When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world.History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire.[To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow! Amazing! You got all that about all of us from one comment from
Judy. Which gift enables you to discern these things so accurately
with such scanty informatiom from which to draw a conclusion?
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why
notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning
the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to demonic possession and what
isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it in my
bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists.
Only a legalist
would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for lists or formulas. the "nine spiritual
gifts" is not a complete list
-- but legalists
treat that list as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on
what is available in terms of
"gifts." And so we have the theology
of a legalist -- steeped in
the "rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations
and the like.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace
I consider killing Arabs to be a higher prioroty than paying teachers or fighting aids. === As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date. Take another look at that sum. What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq? Well, . . . We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units. We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start. We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans. We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year. We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students. We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years. We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years. We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years. According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding. The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million. Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless. It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace! I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about "fighting terrorism." But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets? When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world. History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire. [To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
RE: [TruthTalk] War or peace
Or we could have just kept all the money in D.C. for all the Libs to spend on their favorite pet projects (themselves) and allowed the terrorists to have free run of America and the world. (Thats what they REALLY want, as they were doing NONE of the below prior to 9-11) The cost of the war is not the issue: the cost of NOT going to was IS. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:52 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace Moderator(s) : I am not going to make this a habit, but this post presets some numbers that I was unfamilar with (i,.e, total cost of war) and goes to discussions we have had in the past. JD As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date. Take another look at that sum. What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq? Well, . . . We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units. We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start. We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans. We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year. We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students. We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years. We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years. We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years. According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding. The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million. Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless. It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace! I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about fighting terrorism. But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets? When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world. History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire. [To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
RE: [TruthTalk] War or peace
If you dont want AIDS, dont do sodomy or drugs. If you dont want to spread AIDS to innocents, dont do sodomy or drugs. I have a friend (doctors wife) whose twenty-something daughter died of AIDS. More is spent on AIDS research than on Cancer research, in spite of the fact that it affects only a fraction of the people that cancer does. Public school teachers should not be paid more until they illustrate the capability of teaching their students to be as smart as they were thirty years ago. The money should go to parents who want to send their children to competent schools. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace I consider killing Arabs to be a higher prioroty than paying teachers or fighting aids. === As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date. Take another look at that sum. What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq? Well, . . . We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units. We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start. We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans. We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year. We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students. We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years. We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years. We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years. According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding. The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million. Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless. It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace! I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about fighting terrorism. But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets? When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world. History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire. [To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
I am talkingabout legalists, Terry -- not "all of us." I asume you question my comments beginning with "And you ask why I think y ou and others ." You assume "scanty information" when, in poitn of fact, I have been fighting legalism for nearly 40 years now. Legalism is the single beggest problem effecting the church and its history goes back to thevery first days of the church. What I said about how a legalist thinks is right on, even I do say so myself !! I was a legalist for years but not one by nature. Many of my friends are legalists.A legalist, in by book, is one who requires of others what he, himself, holds to be true. That statementhas a couple of limitations. First, it concerns itself with "fellowship."" ... one who requires of others .."indetermi
ning continued fellowship. And, secondly, it does not includefaith in and of Christ. In other words, the "definition" assumes that we have named the name of Christ in somemeaningful way. I do not know it you do this. But I do know of two or three on this forum who do -- hense the word "others." A legalist is the enemy of unity and I have no respect for them at all. Intolerance is not to be tolerated !!!
JD-Original Message-From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:14 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow! Amazing! You got all that about all of us from one comment from Judy. Which gift enables you to discern these things so accurately with such scanty informatiom from which to draw a conclusion?=[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to demonic possession and what isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it in my bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists. Only a legalist would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for lists or formulas. the "nine spiritual gifts" is not a complete list -- but legalists treat that list as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on what is available in terms of "gifts." And so we have the theology of a legalist -- steeped in the "rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations and the like.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am talkingabout legalists, Terry -- not "all of us." I asume you question my
comments beginning with "And you ask why I think y ou and others
." You assume "scanty information" when, in poitn of fact, I
have been fighting legalism for nearly 40 years now. Legalism is the
single beggest problem effecting the church and its history goes back
to thevery first days of the church. What I said about how a
legalist thinks is right on, even I do say so myself !! I was a
legalist for years but not one by nature. Many of my friends are
legalists.A legalist, in by book,
is one who requires of others what he, himself, holds to be true.
That statementhas a couple of limitations. First, it concerns itself
with "fellowship."" ... one who requires of others .."indetermi
ning continued fellowship. And, secondly, it does not includefaith
in and of Christ. In other words, the "definition" assumes that we
have named the name of Christ in somemeaningful way. I do not know
it you do this. But I do know of two or three on this forum who do --
hense the word "others." A legalist is the enemy of unity and I have
no respect for them at all. Intolerance is not to be tolerated !!!
JD
-Original Message-
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow!
Amazing! You got all that about all of us from one comment from Judy.
Which gift enables you to discern these things so accurately with such
scanty informatiom from which to draw a conclusion?
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why
notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning
the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to demonic possession and what
isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it in my
bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists.
Only a legalist
would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look
for lists or formulas. the
"nine spiritual gifts" is not a complete list -- but legalists
treat that list as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on
what is available in terms of
"gifts." And so we have the theology
of a legalist -- steeped in
the "rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations
and the like.
JD
Whatever
Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace
Well! it's clearthat the Society For People Whose Reflexes Are Not Functioning doesn't need many tax dollars, at least. Debbie - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] War or peace If you dont want AIDS, dont do sodomy or drugs. If you dont want to spread AIDS to innocents, dont do sodomy or drugs. I have a friend (doctors wife) whose twenty-something daughter died of AIDS. More is spent on AIDS research than on Cancer research, in spite of the fact that it affects only a fraction of the people that cancer does. Public school teachers should not be paid more until they illustrate the capability of teaching their students to be as smart as they were thirty years ago. The money should go to parents who want to send their children to competent schools. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:38 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace I consider killing Arabs to be a higher prioroty than paying teachers or fighting aids. === As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date.Take another look at that sum.What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq?Well, . . .We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units.We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start.We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans.We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year.We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students.We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years.We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years.According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding.The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million.Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless.It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace!I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about "fighting terrorism."But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets?When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world.History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire.[To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
[TruthTalk] [Fwd: [cimerron] Digest Number 962]
--- For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre. I humbly offer my opinion here: I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.). I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11. I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs. I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth. I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media. I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian cause. I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians. I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems. I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES). I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the food for oil money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered. I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death. I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in paradise. I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets. I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group. I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah. I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient Holy Site. I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites. I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etcetc! I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa. America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology. Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans. If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait! You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins. Chuck Pitman Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret) -- 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] Blessing vs Curses
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:29:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am talkingabout legalists, Terry -- not
"all of us."
jt: So IYO it is legalism to take the Word of God at
face value and believe what it says JD?
I asume you question my comments beginning with "And you ask why I think
y ou and others ."
You assume "scanty information" when, in poitn of fact, I have been
fighting legalism for nearly 40 years now.
jt: Then you must be fighting yourself JD; being
obedient to God's Word is not legalism.
Legalism is the single beggest problem effecting the church and its
history goes back to thevery first days of the church. What
I said about how a legalist thinks is right on, even I do say so myself
!!
jt: Nobody on TT is encouraging others to put
themselves under the Levites in this generation JD. You
are imagining things.
I was a legalist for years but not one by nature. Many of my
friends are legalists.A legalist, in by book, is one who requires of others what he,
himself, holds to be true.
jt: Then Jesus was a legalist because he had this
requirement; one that the rich young ruler was unwilling to
meet along with his followers who left Him in John 6
when they learned what covenant with Him involved.
That statementhas a couple of limitations. First, it
concerns itself with "fellowship."" ... one who requires of
others .."indetermi ning continued fellowship. And,
secondly, it does not includefaith in and of Christ.
jt: Faith in and of Christhas certain
requirements - Jesus Himself linked sin and sickness. He healed the man
at
Bethesda and told him to go and sin no more lest a
worse thing come uponHim. Same with the woman caught
in adultery - "God and sin no more"
In other words, the "definition" assumes that we have named the name of
Christ in somemeaningful way. I do not know it you do
this. But I do know of two or three on this forum who do -- hense
the word "others."
jt: Are we including Jesus with these?
A legalist is the enemy of unity and I have no respect for them at
all.
Intolerance is not to be tolerated !!! JD
jt: How ironic. Well I guess it all depends
what one is willing to unify around. If it's doing your own thing - then
go
for it - but I for one will neverbe unifying
around that with you.
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:14
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow!
Amazing! You got all that about
all of us from one comment from
Judy. Which gift enables you to discern these things so accurately with
such scanty informatiom from which to draw a
conclusion?=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why
notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning
the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin
to demonic possession and what
isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it
in my bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists. Only
a legalist would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for
lists or formulas. the "nine
spiritual gifts" is not a complete list -- but legalists treat that list
as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on what is available in terms of "gifts." And so we
have the theology of a legalist -- steeped in the
"rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations
and the like.
JD
RE: [TruthTalk] War or peace
There are adult diapers for that. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:12 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace Well! it's clearthat the Society For People Whose Reflexes Are Not Functioning doesn't need many tax dollars, at least. Debbie - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] War or peace If you dont want AIDS, dont do sodomy or drugs. If you dont want to spread AIDS to innocents, dont do sodomy or drugs. I have a friend (doctors wife) whose twenty-something daughter died of AIDS. More is spent on AIDS research than on Cancer research, in spite of the fact that it affects only a fraction of the people that cancer does. Public school teachers should not be paid more until they illustrate the capability of teaching their students to be as smart as they were thirty years ago. The money should go to parents who want to send their children to competent schools. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] War or peace I consider killing Arabs to be a higher prioroty than paying teachers or fighting aids. === As of 2 p.m. (CST) on August 23, 2005, the war in Iraq had cost U. S. taxpayers $189,476,500,321. This according to estimates from Congressional appropriations to date. Take another look at that sum. What could the nation have done with this money had we not gone to war in Iraq? Well, . . . We could have built 1,706,057 additional housing units. We could have paid for 25,096,232 children to attend a full year of Head Start. We could have provided health insurance for 113,459,062 of our fellow Americans. We could have hired 3,283,653 public school teachers for a full year. We could have provided full-pay, four year scholarships to public universities for 9,185,415 students. We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years. We could have fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for 18 years. We could have provided basic immunizations for every child in the world for 63 years. According to the National Priorities Project, the source for this comparative information, here in Texas the cost of the war totals $16.6 billion. I expect that kind of money might have helped us move toward a solution for public school funding. The tab for Dallas stands at over $890.7 million. Hmmm. Wonder what the city of Dallas could have accomplished with that kind of tax savings? Hunger, education, employment training, housing, nutrition, health care. . .as I think about it, the list is almost endless. It may be about time to ask some questions. I believe that is especially true if you really care about poverty, cities and justice--not to mention peace! I know all the arguments and the now standard rhetoric about fighting terrorism. But, really now, are bombs and troops and firestorms really as effective at battling our enemies as solid diplomacy or effective initiatives to improve global health and develop economies and new markets? When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took up the anti-war cause toward the end of his life during the Vietnam era, some people did not understand. But Dr. King did. He knew that the needs and the rights of under-paid, struggling sanitation workers in a city like Memphis, Tennessee were tied directly to the billions being spent in futile jungle warfare on the other side of the world. History repeats itself. The cities of the nation suffer needlessly and we do not have the results we desire. [To watch the spending in real time check out http://costofwar.com and http://nationalpriorities.org.] posted by Larry James @ 10:33 AM 10 comments
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:48:39 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:29:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am talkingabout legalists, Terry -- not "all of us."
jt: So IYO it is legalism to take the Word of God at face value and believe what it says JD?
I neither said the above nor do I believe such. One thing I have noticed over the years, is that legalists will change the wording of a brother or embellish his/her comments and then get rid of them or curse them in some way. You have taken the first step -- accusing me of saying something I did not say.. Read my post.
I asume you question my comments beginning with "And you ask why I think y ou and others ."
You assume "scanty information" when, in poitn of fact, I have been fighting legalism for nearly 40 years now.
jt: Then you must be fighting yourself JD; being obedient to God's Word is not legalism.
Personal obedience to God's Word is not what I am talking about -- but how could you know this is since you obviouslyhave notread my post?
Legalism is the single beggest problem effecting the church and its history goes back to thevery first days of the church. What I said about how a legalist thinks is right on, even I do say so myself !!
jt: Nobody on TT is encouraging others to put themselves under the Levites in this generation JD. You
are imagining things.
What are you talking about?I did not mention the Levitical law and the NT epistles do not distinguish between the Levitical and the Moasical.
I was a legalist for years but not one by nature. Many of my friends are legalists.A legalist, in by book, is one who requires of others what he, himself, holds to be true.
jt: Then Jesus was a legalist because he had this requirement; one that the rich young ruler was unwilling to
meet along with his followers who left Him in John 6 when they learned what covenant with Him involved.
Until you have sold all that you have, your argument above is worthless.
That statementhas a couple of limitations. First, it concerns itself with "fellowship."" ... one who requires of others .."indetermi ning continued fellowship. And, secondly, it does not includefaith in and of Christ.
jt: Faith in and of Christhas certain requirements - Jesus Himself linked sin and sickness. He healed the man at
Bethesda and told him to go and sin no more lest a worse thing come uponHim. Same with the woman caught
in adultery - "God and sin no more"
Jesus will always ask us to "sin no more." But His blessings were bestowed BEFORE the request was made.
In other words, the "definition" assumes that we have named the name of Christ in somemeaningful way. I do not know it you do this. But I do know of two or three on this forum who do -- hense the word "others."
jt: Are we including Jesus with these?
Of course not.
A legalist is the enemy of unity and I have no respect for them at all.
Intolerance is not to be tolerated !!! JD
jt: How ironic. Well I guess it all depends what one is willing to unify around. If it's doing your own thing - then go
for it - but I for one will neverbe unifying around that with you.
Actually a legalist is the very person who "does their own thing." It is they who have their own pet doctrines. It is they who refuse to put their rules of fellowship into writing. It is they who want to control others rather than depending upon the Living Christ and His workings in the inner man.
Jd
From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:14 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow! Amazing! You got all that about all of us from one comment from Judy. Which gift enables you to discern these things so accurately with such scanty informatiom from which to draw a conclusion?=[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are concerning the various levels ofdiscomfort -- fromcurse to sin to demonic possession and what isrecognized as a part of these categories. I don't see it in my bible studies.
And you ask why I think you and others are legalists. Only a legalist would even think this way, IMO
.I know that I do not look for lists or formulas. the "nine spiritual gifts" is not a complete list -- but legalists treat that list as if it were intended to be a definitive statement on what is available in terms of "gifts." And so we have the theology of a legalist -- steeped in the "rational" and logical, full of lists and formula's and dispensations and the like.
JD
Re: [TruthTalk] help
Does anyone know the number of the flight that was shot down off the coast of Florida two or three years ago -- flight 108 I thought. but I cannot find any info on this flight. I must have something wrong. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
I think I should let this go JD because I haven't a
clue what you are about here or how you always seem to get from
whatever we arediscussing to "legalism"so consistently. Yes Jesus
healed ppl, this is what he came to do but
ATST he told them to sin no
more lest a worse thing come upon them which reinforces what is written in Deut
ie
that sin and sickness are
linked. As for the rich young ruler, he had a sinful heart attitude of
greed are you saying
that I do also?? jt
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:29:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am talkingabout legalists,
Terry -- not "all of us."
jt: So IYO it is legalism to take the Word of God at face value and believe what
it says JD?
I neither said the above nor do I believe
such. One thing I have noticed over the years, is that legalists will change the wording of a brother
or embellish his/her comments and then
get rid of them or curse them in some way. You have taken the first step --
accusing me of saying something I did
not say.. Read my post.
I asume you question my comments beginning with "And you ask why I think y ou and others
."
You assume "scanty information"
when, in poitn of fact, I have
been fighting legalism for nearly 40
years now.
jt: Then you must be fighting yourself JD; being obedient to God's Word is not legalism.
Personal obedience to God's
Word is not what I am talking about -- but how could you know this is since
you obviouslyhave notread my post?
Legalism is the single beggest problem effecting the church and its
history goes back to thevery first days of the church.
What I said about how a legalist thinks
is right on, even I do say so myself !!
jt: Nobody on
TT is encouraging others to put
themselves under the Levites in this
generation JD. You
are imagining
things.
What are you talking about?I did not mention the Levitical law and the NT epistles do not distinguish between the Levitical and the Moasical.
I was a legalist for years but not
one by nature. Many of my friends are legalists.A legalist, in by book, is one who requires of others what he,
himself, holds to be true.
jt: Then Jesus
was a legalist because he had this
requirement; one that the rich young ruler was unwilling to
meet along with his followers who left Him in John
6 when they learned what covenant with Him involved.
Until you have sold all that you
have, your argument above is worthless.
That statementhas a couple of limitations. First, it
concerns itself with "fellowship."" ... one who requires
of others .."indetermi ning continued fellowship. And,
secondly, it does not includefaith in and of Christ.
jt: Faith in
and of Christhas certain requirements - Jesus Himself linked sin and
sickness. He healed the man at
Bethesda and told him to go and sin no more lest a
worse thing come uponHim. Same with the woman
caught
in adultery - "God and sin no more"
Jesus will always ask us to "sin no
more." But His blessings were bestowed BEFORE the request was
made.
In other words, the "definition" assumes that we have named the name of
Christ in somemeaningful way. I do not know it you do this. But I do know of two or
three on this forum who do -- hense the word "others."
jt: Are we
including Jesus with these?
Of course not.
A legalist is the enemy of unity
and I have no respect for them at all.
Intolerance is not to be tolerated !!! JD
jt: How
ironic. Well I guess it all depends what one is willing to unify
around. If it's doing your own thing - then go
for it - but I
for one will neverbe unifying around that with
you.
Actually a legalist is the very person who "does their own
thing." It is they who have their own pet doctrines. It is
they who refuse to put their rules of fellowship into writing. It is
they who want to control others rather than depending upon the Living Christ
and His workings in the inner man.
Jd
From: Terry Clifton wabbits1234@earthlink.netTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:14
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
Wow!
Amazing! You got all that about all of us from one comment from Judy. Which gift enables
you to discern these things so
accurately with such scanty informatiom
from which to draw a
conclusion?=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
lust in the "category" of SIN, not demonic possession. Why
notspell out, plainly,what your rules ("categories") are
Re: [TruthTalk] Blessing vs Curses
myth (your twist, that you take the WoG at 'face value', is false--legalist logicloves twisting and twistedtruth) On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:48:39 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:29:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So IYO it is legalism to take the Word of God at face value
Re: [TruthTalk] help
http://www.dreamscapecom/morgana/leda.htm TWA 800 Investigationby Ian Williams Goddard "Traces of the explosive PETN (used in both bombs and guided missiles) were found on the debris of TWA flight 800, which crashed off the Long Island shore on July 17, 1996 killing 230 people. The crash has been classified as an accident. The finding of PETN was, however, not revealed to the public at an FBI or NTSB press conference. The only reason this most significant discovery became known to the American people was because several high-level investigators leaked the information to the New York Times. " http://www.dreamscapecom/morgana/leda.htm also: http://wwwnewsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/3/29/111323 http://www.coverups.com/twa/friendly2.htm - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] help Does anyone know the number of the flight that was shot down off the coast of Florida two or three years ago -- flight 108 I thought. but I cannot find any info on this flight. I must have something wrong. JD
