date:20051208

I sure don't wonder at this Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, like
he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my
percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your
understanding as well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I
understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure.

jd-Original Message-From:
Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800
(PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people
down. You have allies on this forum but no real
brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect
that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.
The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to
you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken
honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of
yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's
beliefs.C.S.L included.

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

Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love him because he believed as they do in
BECOMING a 'god'

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

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




Forever rail against the graciousness of this 
selfsame God?

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

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

MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 

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


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

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE




When all of us stand before God at the great white 
throne judgment... we have to know where we failed. Noone 
will have grounds toaccuse Him of 
beingunloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and 

we will know thiswithout anyone having to tell us... So the test is for us 
rather than for Him. judyt

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  To test them 
  DaveHDAVEH: ??? Do you not think God 
  knew their faith, Judy? Why do you think God would need to test them, 
  since he created themknowing they would transgress?Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  
To test them DaveH. Faith is 
ALWAYS tested.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH: If that 
  is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and 
  evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry? Rather than 
  go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, would it have 
  not been immensely easier to simply not have put the tree of knowledge of 
  good and evil in the garden? IOWthere must have been a reason 
  for God to put the tree there. Seems like it would be 
  important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed that tree 
  there. Why do you think, Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: 
  
  This 
seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been 
taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to 
accept.God is omnicient, He knew they would sin. He 
did not plan for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the 
fall. Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, 
who knows? All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads 
to 
error.=Dave 
Hansen wrote: 
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for 
  everyone?if they had not they would 
  have saved themselves and the rest of 
  humanity all of the heartache, suffering, 
  and misery that has been the human lot since 
  then.DAVEH: Thank you two for 
  your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the AE 
  situation of which I am most keen. One of my earliest 
  religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in 
  which he said AE screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden 
  fruit. He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all 
  live forever without experiencing death. Even though the kid was 
  less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as 
  being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire 
  again. I must be missing something about 
  your (forgive mebut let me say, Protestant) belief about the 
  fall. If AE had not transgressed, do you think none of 
  their descendants would have transgressed? In my experience, the 
  best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him from doing 
  it! Don't you think that at some point---probably much sooner 
  than later---one of AE's children would have fallen? Or do 
  you believe that of the billions who descended from AE, none 
  would ever have transgressed? Just what are the chances of that 
  happening.zilch?!?!?! Sowhy do most 
  Christians blame AE for the misery in the world, when it was 
  inevitable. From my perspectivenot only was it expected, but 
  it was planned. And...evidently you believe that as 
  well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from 
  before the world was created.that it was planned? (Please 
  let me know if you do not believe such.) Yet you apparently 
  don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way. Do you see 
  why your perspective perplexes me? It doesn't seem 
  logical. Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about the 
  way you understand it.
  Judy wrote:I think they did nto have 
  to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves 
  and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache, suffering, 
  and misery that has been the human lot since then. Why would 
  the Lord
  want that for 
  them/us?Terry Clifton wrote: 
  God 
hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no 
matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times 
I am given that option. God will give you the option, but it 
is not His desire. I think that must be one of the toughest parts of 
being God, wanting what is best for His people, yet allowing them to 
make choices

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




IFF one (mis)cites Scripture with the intention of 
speaking for God, what is it that one has done?

Perhaps one who only/always cites/interprets 
without error can enlighten us?

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are more
in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom (someone
almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she will then be
spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's daughter. (I'd mention
you mom's name but, don't know it).

fn:Christine: Are you at the University of Florida?
Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor)

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 08, 2005 05:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people
down

I sure don't wonder at this Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age,
like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my
percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be
your understanding as well?
jdFrom:
Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I
understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure.

jd-Original Message-From:
Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800
(PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love him because he believed as they do in
BECOMING a 'god'

[TruthTalk] DAVE HANSEN




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

thanks,

Lance

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




Lance my goodness, this looks more like a morning rant 
than morning musings ... sigh!

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:30:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame 
  God?
  
  Who is railing? Taking His Own Words seriously 
  is hardly railing against anything, in fact it is honoring Him in his love and 
  graciousness because this is what He requires of us.
  
  Judy  Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through 
  Lewis  Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's 
  observations. Amen Linda!
  
  I read Linda's observations and there was a time when 
  I may have agreed with her - However, I now believe that a heart truly 
  surrendered to Christ would have layed aside the 
  classical education and mythology rather than try to mix it like oil and 
  water. Paul had a pretty good education 
  himself and he counted it as dung compared to the knowledge of Christ. For the 
  record I don't believe CSL actually knew the Lord 
  though he may have been up on doctrinal orthodoxy and he made a lot of money 
  with his writing. His personal choices tell the rest of the 
  story.
  
  David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, 
  absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the 
  home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society 
  thingy).
  
  I have not railed against anything Lance and the 
  "believing community" I am around encourages women to stay at home and nurture 
  their children. I happen to believe that God made men and women to be 
  different and that the women are the nurturers. In a home where there is the 
  love of Christ (beginning with the husband/father) there is 
  no reason for women to be out there swimming with the 
  sharks and wearing themselves out to be accepted.
  
  MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 
  
  Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post 
  yesterday.Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! 
  When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE 
  IS SAD! There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 
  
  
  No Lance. I have not misrepresented the God I 
  serve at all; He may not meet your standards but He is the one 
  I must answer to. You have your own thing going 
  on that makes no sense at all to me.
  
  'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' 
  brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way 
  to go (ceptin' now and then, of course)
  
  
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

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




Lance why don't you trying employing the "words of God" 
with the WORD OF GOD
sometime and give us an example of the "real thing" IYO 
of course. jt

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:41:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  IFF one (mis)cites Scripture with the intention 
  of speaking for God, what is it that one has done?
  
  Perhaps one who only/always cites/interprets 
  without error can enlighten us?
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down




Your fault if you don't know her mother's name Lance. David has mentioned 
it on TT before. I know it.
Also why would they be talking about her when they are so ridiculed and 
maligned? I don't notice you saying
a whole lot about your wife on this list either and I certainly would not 
know her name.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are 
  more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom 
  (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she will 
  then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's daughter. (I'd 
  mention you mom's name but, don't know it). 
  
  fn:Christine: Are you at the University of 
  Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor)
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 08, 2005 05:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people 
down

I sure don't wonder at this Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, 
like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you 
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

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


ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my 
percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be 
your understanding as well? 
jdFrom: 
Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com



Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

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

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

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

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


jd

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

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




Your DISCERNMENT ON THIS MATTER (who knows, maybe a 
few other matters also) is wide of the mark.I've occasionally drawn a 
comparison between yourself and David Miller on this discernment thingy, Judy. 
Do take care won't you, Judy, in consigning persons to 
Hell?

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

My rather ill-formed point Judy, had more to do
with David's errant 'take' and the male/female thingy. He and, others who
espouse such errant thinking/teaching are somewhat accountable for the very
issues they rail against.

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 08, 2005 06:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people
down

Your fault if you don't know her mother's name Lance. David has mentioned
it on TT before. I know it.
Also why would they be talking about her when they are so ridiculed and
maligned? I don't notice you saying
a whole lot about your wife on this list either and I certainly would not
know her name.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are
more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom
(someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she
will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's
daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it).

fn:Christine: Are you at the University of
Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor)

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 08, 2005 05:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting
people down

I sure don't wonder at this
Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age,
like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

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

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my
percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be
your understanding as well?
jdFrom:
Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I
understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of
perhaps 95% of deegan's
postings. Go refigure.

jd-Original
Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800
(PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

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




Yes Lance, I do appreciate your concern
But I have yet to consign the first person to hell - 
it's all in your too vivid imagination.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:19:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Your DISCERNMENT ON THIS MATTER (who knows, maybe 
  a few other matters also) is wide of the mark.I've occasionally drawn a 
  comparison between yourself and David Miller on this discernment thingy, Judy. 
  Do take care won't you, Judy, in consigning persons to 
Hell?
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down




How would you know how DavidM loves his wife 
Lance? Isn't this putting your opinion out there a bit?
I don't think he has shared his whole mind on this 
matter exhaustively - do you? Also his priorities are
definitely not mainstream. So why is he the 
subject here?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:23:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  My rather ill-formed point Judy, had more to do 
  with David's errant 'take' and the male/female thingy. He and, others who 
  espouse such errant thinking/teaching are somewhat accountable for the very 
  issues they rail against.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Your fault if you don't know her mother's name 
Lance. David has mentioned it on TT before. I know it.
Also why would they be talking about her when they 
are so ridiculed and maligned? I don't notice you saying
a whole lot about your wife on this list either and 
I certainly would not know her name.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are 
  more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom 
  (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she 
  will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's 
  daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it). 
  
  fn:Christine: Are you at the University of 
  Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor)
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

I sure don't wonder at this 
Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your 
age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you 
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

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


ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so 
my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that 
be your understanding as 
well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com



Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

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

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

  

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting 
people down. You have allies on this forum but no 
real brethren (except -

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




Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. 
S. Lewis actually knew the Lord'

Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due 
to a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the 
Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect that 
the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask 
Judy the following questions: 

1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
'know' (define please) the Lord?

2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? 
(employ some biblical interpretation, please)

thanks,

Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

I don't eat rabbit.

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

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: December 08, 2005 06:37
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people 
  down

  How would you know how DavidM loves his wife 
  Lance? Isn't this putting your opinion out there a bit?
  I don't think he has shared his whole mind on this 
  matter exhaustively - do you? Also his priorities are
  definitely not mainstream. So why is he the 
  subject here?

  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:23:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

My rather ill-formed point Judy, had more to do 
with David's errant 'take' and the male/female thingy. He and, others who 
espouse such errant thinking/teaching are somewhat accountable for the very 
issues they rail against.

  From: Judy Taylor 

  Your fault if you don't know her mother's name 
  Lance. David has mentioned it on TT before. I know it.
  Also why would they be talking about her when 
  they are so ridiculed and maligned? I don't notice you 
  saying
  a whole lot about your wife on this list either 
  and I certainly would not know her name.

  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD 
are more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her 
mom (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) 
she will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's 
daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it). 

fn:Christine: Are you at the University of 
Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor)

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 

  I sure don't wonder at this 
  Christine,
  Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your 
  age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
  just the novice who still has to learn; do 
  you sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?

  On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

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

  ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so 
  my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would 
  that be your understanding as 
  well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com

  Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I 
understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter 
of perhaps 95% of deegan's 
postings. Go refigure. 

jd-Original 
Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 
-0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

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

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis
actually knew the Lord'

Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a
belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the
Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect
that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word
and, ask Judy the following questions:

1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 'know'
(define please) the Lord?

Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, I
would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called himself
an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not following the example
Christ left for us either by
hunting down and killing heretics.Do you think
the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine having to
stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these heretics in your name" (as
per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will of
the Father? Is this following Jesus' example? Will He say "Well
done thou good and faithful servant?"

2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some
biblical interpretation, please)

CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he served
and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either accepting or
rejecting him on that day.

thanks, Lance

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

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

OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just
make yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word
'HELL'.

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 08, 2005 06:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] WATCH BELOW AS
JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis
actually knew the Lord'

1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 'know'
(define please) the Lord?

Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, I
would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called himself
an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not following the example
Christ left for us either by
hunting down and killing heretics.Do you
think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine
having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord,
I hunted down and killed all of these heretics in
your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will of the Father? Is this following Jesus' example?
Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful servant?"

2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some
biblical interpretation, please)

CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he
served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either accepting
or rejecting him on that day.

thanks, Lance

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

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




Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only those 
who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his mouthpieces. They 
(JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him (God).

IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE HOLY 
FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them (JRRT 
 CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!

Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
point?

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to Check Archives




Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the 
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting. It is 
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
"fundamentalist"card file. 
As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have always 
said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox and 
bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is 
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... even 
when it comes to what I personally believe.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

  OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, 
  just make yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the 
  word 'HELL'. 
  
From: Judy Taylor 

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
  Lewis actually knew the Lord'
  
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a 
  belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the 
  Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I 
  suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove 
  this word and, ask Judy the following questions: 
  
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
  'know' (define please) the Lord?
  
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, 
  I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called 
  himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not following the 
  example Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics.Do you 
  think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine 
  having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, 
  I hunted down and killed all of these heretics 
  in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will 
  of the Father? Is this following Jesus' 
  example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
  servant?"
  
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
  some biblical interpretation, please)
  
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he 
  served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
  accepting or rejecting him on that 
  day.
  
  thanks, Lance
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

Again you choose to personalize?  Are you attacking my caracter?Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:40:57 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?IMAGINE   Judas, Esau, Hitler, Jeffery Dahmler, Bin Laden, Kevin Deegan IN Heaven  Some say it's easy if you try.
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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




Are you up to being able to separate the holy from the 
profane yourself Lance?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only 
  those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
  mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
  
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE HOLY 
  FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them (JRRT 
   CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!
  
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
  point?
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

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




Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!

Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are wrong 
concerning JRRT  CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we to think 
concerning that which we read of you hereafter?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 07:25
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION 
  MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?
  
  Are you up to being able to separate the holy from 
  the profane yourself Lance?
  
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only 
those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
(God).

IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE 
HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them 
(JRRT  CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!

Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
point?
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

[TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?




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

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

Your games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at the same time.You are playing games THIRD REQUEST Show us where I called CSL "EVIL" Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth! This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense. Set up your false allegations Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at
the same time. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes againI put him "down" as "evil"? Please -second request - show us whereI said he was evilI simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me. See to it yourself. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have nolasting
influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol.jd -Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs upLance likes him because he is so CatholicThe mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with
images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htmLewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme
unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great
Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65)....Q: Speaking just as a layman, it seems to me that the "theology" you get out of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, THE GREAT DIVORCE, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS is Orthodox. I was recently

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




That is not my problem (what you think); it is entirely 
between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience toward 
the Lord and others.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
  
  Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are 
  wrong concerning JRRT  CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we to 
  think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Are you up to being able to separate the holy from 
the profane yourself Lance?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only 
  those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
  mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
  
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE 
  HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to 
  them (JRRT  CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!
  
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
  point?
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

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




OK - You go first

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

WOW you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST?What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep?The Author is D M Quinn He is a commited Mormon. He is a Professor at BYU from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism. This thoroughly researched examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:14:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Joseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the first Decan of Capricorn whose ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 1805.
Blainerb: Like most of what you quote,your author was apparently depending on the ignorance of the reader to persuade against Joseph Smith. Yes, Joseph was born on December 23, and thatmeans the sun was inthe first decan of Capricorn. However, the ruling planet for Capricorn was never Jupiter--it is and always has been Saturn. Jupiter is the ruler of one sign of the zodiac only and that is Sagittarius. Upon checking other signs for Joseph Smith, I see the moon was in the sign Aquarius, also ruled by Saturn. If Joseph had worn a Saturn talisman, your writer's comments might have some validity--as it is,it's obvious he's a liar who cares nothing for the truth.

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

[TruthTalk] For an INERRANTIST y'all are ERRANT (IMO - whew!) in your interpretations, Judy




Even the one 'infallible interpreter' on TT has 
taken issue with your Scriptural interpretation(s) on occasion(s). Many have 
taken exception to your non-personalist hermeneutic. Many take exception to your 
sacred/secular dichotomy. Many take exception over your dualism/gnosticism. Many 
take exception to your unthinking criticisms of persons whom God holds 
dear. (Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Tolkien  BOB DYLAN) (Maybe just you and me on 
this one, Gary)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 07:23
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to 
  Check Archives
  
  Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the 
  archives before making these wild accusations.
  It's not me doing the painting. It is 
  you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
  "fundamentalist"
  And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
  "fundamentalist"card file. 
  As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have 
  always said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
  But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox and 
  bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is 
  there
  Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... 
  even when it comes to what I personally believe.
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION
  
OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, 
just make yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of 
the word 'HELL'. 

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
Lewis actually knew the Lord'

Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a 
belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing 
the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I 
suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then 
remove this word and, ask Judy the following questions: 


1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
'know' (define please) the Lord?


Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL 
Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who 
called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not 
following the example Christ left for us either by
hunting down and killing heretics.Do you 
think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine 
having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, 
I hunted down and killed all of these 
heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the 
will of the Father? Is this following 
Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
servant?"

2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
some biblical interpretation, please)

CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he 
served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
accepting or rejecting him on that 
day.

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

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




Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated that 
he did not know the Lord. (I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why not, at 
the very least, give us an "IMO'?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: December 08, 2005 07:35
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION 
  MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?
  
  That is not my problem (what you think); it is 
  entirely between you and the one you serve.
  My responsibility is to walk in good conscience 
  toward the Lord and others.
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!

Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are 
wrong concerning JRRT  CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we 
to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Are you up to being able to separate the holy 
  from the profane yourself Lance?
  
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that 
only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
(God).

IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE 
THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied 
to them (JRRT  CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!

Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
point?
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Apparently he does not see it. He is unable to DEAL with issues only attacks PEOPLE who raise issues.So don't let it get to you. Just be glad he has not yet called you aIDIOT, JEW PUNK etc. When he calls someone a name it is only "designed to help" them! Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well?jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people downMaybe you have a Guilty Conscience?And for a even more interesting note In your eyes what is your Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of
view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people downKevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days.
We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to
Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write
for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography,
p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism " (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used

[TruthTalk] IDIOT, JEW PUNK???????????????




Please explain? Who called who 
this?

Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox

So there was NO Autumn Equinox in 1824? 1825? 1826? 1827? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: Not only was your author wrong as to the ruler of Capricorn, he implies that the autumn equinox falls on the 22 of September every year of the four years Joseph Smith went to the hill to meet with the angel. This could not have been true, as the autumn equinox changes days according to several factors, mostly having to do with whether or not the yearis a leap year. See table below for an example of this-- notice the time of day varies as well as the day.Your author is nothing more than a cheap put-down artist bent on making Joseph
Smith the true prophet look bad. The Autumnal Equinox happens once a year. At this time, because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun and because the Earth is tilted, the Sun crosses over the Earth's equator on its way South.Table of Autumnal Equinoxes YearDateTime (GMT)200323 September10:46200422
September16:29200522 September22:22200623 September04:02200723 September09:50200822 September15:43200922 September21:18201023 September03:08 The Autumn
Equinox is one of the Four Quarter Days of the year. It marks a major mid-point of two of the seasons - In a message dated 12/7/2005 9:14:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe was an Occultist who sacrificed animalsKevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The angel appeared on September 22 every year four years in a row. None of the other dates corresponded to Trumpets.It had more to do with being a observer of SIGNS in the heavens. Jo was an Astrologer who did all his "work" on days of Occult and Astrologic significance Pagans observe the "holy day" of the Autumn Equinox on the date in 1827also. The "angel" of lighthad appeared on the night of the Autumnal equinox, between midnight and dawn--hours auspicious for a magical invocationIn what follows most Mormons will not find a story with which they are familiar. Instead, they will discover that Joseph Smith evidently participated extensively in magical pursuits and that he shared with others of his contemporaries a magic world view of the world. For myself, I
have found that the 'official version' of early Mormon history is sometimes incomplete in its presentation and evaluation of evidence, and therefore inaccurate in certain respects." (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Introduction, Quinn pagesxx-xxi)In discussing the discovery of the Book of Mormon, Quinn notes that Smith prayed to be guided to the plates for three years in succession on the autumnal equinox. On September 21, 1823, for example, Smith prayed under the full moon on a Sunday night that was ruled by his own ruling planet, Jupiter. The hours of his prayer and vision were ruled by planets and the moon, making the time particularly propitious
for the summoning of and communing with a good spirit. (Smith also owned a talisman which had the magic seal of Jupiter and the Latin words "Confirmo O Deus potentissimus" on one side, and the astrological symbol for Jupiter, Jupiter's magic number (136), and a magic table in Hebrew lettering that added up to 136 on the other side.) Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View D. MICHAEL QUINN http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/magic.htmJoseph Smith, jun. was born December 23, 1805 during the first Decan of Capricorn whose ruling planet is Jupiter, which is also the governing planet for the year 1805. Dr. Durham director of the LDS Institute of
Religion at the University of Utah as well as president of the Mormon History Association "...The purpose of the Table of Jupiter is talismanic magic [sic] was to be able to call upon the celestial intelligences assigned to the particular talisman to assist one in all endeavors. The names of the deities... who could be invoked by the Table were always written on the tailsman or represented by various numbers; three such names were written on Joseph Smith's talisman... Abbah, Father; El Ab, Father is God; and Josiphiel, Johovah speaks for God... When properly invoked, with Jupiter being very powerful and ruling in the heavens, these intelligences by the power of ancient magic guaranteed to the possessor of this tailsman to gain of riches and favor and power and love and peace and to confirm honors and dignities and councils. Tailsmanic magic further declared that any one who worked
skillfully with this Jupiter table would obtain the power of stimulating anyone to offer their love to the possessor of the talisman..."Dabbling in the occult, Smith apprenticed with a man described as "a peripatetic magician, conjurer and fortuneteller," from whom he learned the era's folk concepts of crystal gazing, divining rods, seer stones, and rituals associated with treasure hunting. He advised others in their pursuits, once instructing a neighbor he could locate

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person




On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:42:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Even the one 'infallible interpreter' on TT has taken issue 
  with your Scriptural interpretation(s) on occasion(s). 
  Many have taken exception to your 
  non-personalist hermeneutic. 
  
  What in the world is this? If we are to communicate 
  Lance, you will have to use plain-speak
  
  Many take exception to your sacred/secular dichotomy. 
  
  And what is this? Separating the holy from the 
  profane? Being unwilling to call the world sacred in the face
  of your belief that it was all assumed in 
  Christ?
  
  Many take exception over your dualism/gnosticism. 
  
  I don't have a "gnosticism" What I do have is a 
  "walking after the Spirit" and not fulfilling the lusts of the 
  flesh
  Faulty exegesis here Lance.
  
  Many take exception to your unthinking criticisms of persons whom God holds dear. 
  
  (Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Tolkien  BOB DYLAN) (Maybe just 
  you and me on this one, Gary)
  
  God holds the whole unbelieving world "dear" for that 
  matter (John 3:16) - but when they judge themselves unworthy of eternal 
  life they exclude themselves from his 
  Promises. The ones who make it are those who do His will and 
  who
  speak as the "oracles of God"
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 08, 2005 07:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to 
Check Archives

Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the 
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting. It is 
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
"fundamentalist"card file. 
As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have 
always said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox 
and bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is 
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... 
even when it comes to what I personally believe.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

  OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just make 
  yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word 
  'HELL'. 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
  Lewis actually knew the Lord'
  
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to 
  a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not 
  knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so 
  consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 
  'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following 
  questions: 
  
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
  'know' (define please) the Lord?
  
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL 
  Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who 
  called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not 
  following the example Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics.Do 
  you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't 
  imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But 
  Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these 
  heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the 
  will of the Father? Is this following 
  Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
  servant?"
  
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
  some biblical interpretation, please)
  
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one 
  he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
  accepting or rejecting him on that 
  day.
  
  thanks, Lance
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???




Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is 
what I write your problem?
You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it. I 
am responsible for what I speak/write.
Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic 
hunters as you are about the occultic
type fantasy folk? jt


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated 
  that he did not know the Lord. 
  (I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why 
  not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

That is not my problem (what you think); it is 
entirely between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience 
toward the Lord and others.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
  
  Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are 
  wrong concerning JRRT  CSL 
  (according to some on TT) then, what are we 
  to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Are you up to being able to separate the holy 
from the profane yourself Lance?


On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that 
  only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be 
  his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
  
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE 
  THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you 
  applied to them (JRRT  CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS 
  MOUTHPIECE!
  
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on 
  this point?
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE





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

Dave Hansen wrote:

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



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


Dave Hansen wrote:

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


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

Look around you. Child molesters, burglars, robbers, selfishness,
starvation, disease.Do you think that maybe He wanted Adam and Eve
to
ruin it for everyone?


Dave Hansen wrote:

  
DAVEH: One more fact from your perspective, Terry.I assume
you believe that God did not want AE to sin though, even though he

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???




Bottom line Lance is Jesus' criteria for knowing the 
Truth (Himself) is
When we abide in Him and HIS WORDS abide in us - is 
when we will know the Truth and
the truth will make us free .

Rather than when we know a little bit about Him and mix 
it with pagan folklore and
mystery religions ...

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:03:56 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is 
  what I write your problem?
  You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it. 
  I am responsible for what I speak/write.
  Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic 
  hunters as you are about the occultic
  type fantasy folk? jt
  
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated 
that he did not know the Lord. 
(I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why 
not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  That is not my problem (what you think); it is 
  entirely between you and the one you serve.
  My responsibility is to walk in good conscience 
  toward the Lord and others.
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!

Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you 
are wrong concerning JRRT  CSL 
(according to some on TT) then, what are we 
to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  Are you up to being able to separate the holy 
  from the profane yourself Lance?
  
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that 
only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be 
his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY  CSL) were not speaking for Him 
(God).

IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO 
SEPARATE THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you 
as you applied to them (JRRT  CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS 
MOUTHPIECE!

Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on 
this point?
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE





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



Dave Hansen wrote:

  
   God's desire was for them to remain pure and innocent, just as
would be
the desire of any father for his children.
  
DAVEH: I probably shouldn't intrude on Blaine's discussion with you,
Terry. But, it seems to me that God could easily have kept AE pure
and innocent, had he wanted to do so. For instance, he could
either have kept Satan out of the Garden of Eden, or he could have not
placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil there. Orhe could
simply have not commanded them not to partake. But he didn't do any
of those things. IMO, God wanted AE to transgress for a reason.
  
 FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure
and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children
will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world. I
see it similar to communicable illnesses. You could raise your kid in
a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life. But once he enters
the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of
nasty bugs. Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such
hazards so that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the
strength of his youth than allow such illnesses to eventually attack
later in life when one is perhaps more vulnerable? I see that somewhat
as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good and evil. I hope that
makes a little sense, Terry. (Though I'm sure some TTers will take
exception.) FTRI don't think that is the sole reason for the
tree though.
  
 It is obvious that God did not expect his creations to remain
pure and innocent, and he knew that they would not remain so in the
situation he placed them. But it was necessary for them to go through
that process for a specific reason, as I don't believe God was just
wishfully hoping they would remain pure and innocent.
  
 I do appreciate you sharing your belief about it though, Terry.
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  


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

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

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

  
  Blainerb: If it is all so cut and
dried,
then answer this question: Why was the sinful fruit hanging on a tree
called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
  
  
  And,
another
question--why would God not want them to partake of the fruit of that
tree?
  

  
  
  -- 
~~~
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] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...




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

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



Forever rail against the graciousness of this 
selfsame God?

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

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

MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 


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

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


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

RE: [TruthTalk]









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











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











Perusing was the problem. 




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











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













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



























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



















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



















jd

RE: [TruthTalk]









When I was younger and smarter. 











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







How many years ago would that be?











Bill







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






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





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 











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









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















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











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











jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy asks Lance




Are Kevin and Judy chasing them down to behead them or 
burn them at the stake taking away their
opportunity to repent, Lord willing? The latter 
(as you call them) do not argue with orthodoxy as they
are part of it but neither do they sanctify the Lord in 
their hearts which is apparent by the fruit of their
lives. People who make a stand for the truth are 
never heroes ... Look at what happened to THE
TRUTH HIMSELF

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:17:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

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




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

- 

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

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




Judy and I, at least for a nanosecond, believe the 
same thing. This, IMO, is that at which I was getting and, so it would appear, 
was Judy.


HE IS THE TRUTH. Our statements concerning Him are 
always provisional. That's the best that even you can do, 
David.

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









Judy, how about considering the fact that
CSL was MUCH OLDER than you when he got saved, and maybe just hadnt had
all the years and/or Bible Study Fellowship experiences that you have.
You have grown over the years, according to your words below. Im
sure CSL did also. No one has it all together immediately. Cut
people some slack; especially those who spend their lives writing and speaking
Christian apologetics to the best of their understanding. I think his
personal choices were exemplary. And since when is making a lot of
money writing a sin? 



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























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

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









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



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









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







Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God?











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











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











MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 











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











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

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











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















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

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

Honestly, no I have not.

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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









Bingo. (Gods plan is the only way
to joy.) iz











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







Honestly, no I have not.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: December 08, 2005
08:53





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











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















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

Re: [TruthTalk]


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

jd
-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:44 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 






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





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




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




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





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








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





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





jd

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









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











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







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







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: December 08, 2005
08:43





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









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



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









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







Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God?











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











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











MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 











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











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

Re: [TruthTalk]



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

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





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

jd
-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:44 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 






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





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




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




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





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








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





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





jd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
December 08, 2005 08:43

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

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

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

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

Forever rail against the 
graciousness of this selfsame God?

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

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

MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a 
definition. 

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule. 

jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at the same time.

You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.

Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please -second request - show us whereI said he was evil

I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






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




Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have nolasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol.



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


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


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

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





jd



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



Lance likes him because he is so Catholic

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



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



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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] DAVE HANSEN

2005-12-08 Thread Dave Hansen





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

Lance Muir wrote:

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


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE

2005-12-08 Thread Dave Hansen





monkeys and horses
do not have a soul.

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

 

Terry Clifton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry Clifton wrote:

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


He wanted Adam and Eve to
ruin it for everyone?

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


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

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

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



Judy wrote:

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


Terry Clifton wrote:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] DAVE HANSEN




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


L

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



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

thanks,

Lance-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

jdm wrote:

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

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well?

jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure.

jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.
The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included.

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

Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'

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

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

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



yet another excuse to not answer questions. You and Kevin have this down to an art form !!




-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:37:00 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?





OK - You go first

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



I am addressing your actions not your "caracter."




-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Again you choose to personalize?
Are you attacking my caracter?

Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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



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




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

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: December 08, 2005 10:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people
down

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

jdm
wrote:

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

ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my
percentage would be, ahh, well,
zero!! Would that be your understanding as well?

jd-Original
Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:04:17 -0800
(PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?

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

Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I
understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the
subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go
refigure.

jd-Original
Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800
(PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

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

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people
down. You have allies on this forum but no real
brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect
that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.
The "Cathoilic"
thingy is important only
to you -- not to Lance.You have not
spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of
yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's
beliefs.C.S.L included.

Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love
him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'

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

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

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

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

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

[TruthTalk] books we MUST read???















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



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







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



jd


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

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



jd

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE









Im so glad my grandchildren are
being homeschooledthey are brighter, more socially adept (AND prettier) than the average child!!! J iz











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







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











NONSENSE





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





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











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











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





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

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

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





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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

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

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

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




I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave 
the way - which is to
start with themselves. My response is not an 
excuse for anything - what am I excused from??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

  
  

  OK - You go first
  
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that 
which they say is not embodied truth? J
ust say so so that we may factor that in when 
reading you.
 
  judyt 
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments 
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

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


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

jd




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









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

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



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

jd
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:02:43 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
THE POINT OF MY POST IS you found the book "revolting" when, in fact, you had not read the book. Now, had you read the book , your opinion might have been the same. You have said nothing that argues this point. 

jd

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


If you cannot answer your own question by reading my post in context of the related thread,then I have no idea why you are here, on a DISCUSSION group where reading with understanding is, of course, a requirement -- albeit not arequisite one  

jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:56:32 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?



I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave the way - which is to
start with themselves. My response is not an excuse for anything - what am I excused from??

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




yet another excuse to not answer questions. You and Kevin have this down to an art form !!




From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]





OK - You go first

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



"Help me see ..." says the blind man !!! ??? 



-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:53:30 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?




Help me see MY ACTION below?

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




I am addressing your actions not your "caracter."

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Again you choose to personalize?
Are you attacking my caracter?

Why would God allow a "Devil" into heaven?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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



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




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


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

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









Look, Mr. Nastyman, I only said it seemed
revolting to me, so I didnt read it. OKAY Is
there some requirement in my life that I should have read a book that you
thought was worthwhile or what??? Criticize all you
want. You are quite practiced at it. At least you arent
alone. The Slicer-Dicer continuesiz











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











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











jd


































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













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











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























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











jd






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





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











jd

Re: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge



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


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

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

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




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


















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




[Image removed] 





OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA 

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

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


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






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





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




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



jd










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





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



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







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



jd

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

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



jd

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE

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

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

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

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

NONSENSE
That is like saying a gardner who overprotects his PRIZE flowers from weeds and pests will end up with flowers that are acutely susceptible to it! Prize Flowers are to be handled with care preferably in a safe environment like a greenhouse.
Allowing access to your children to those things that would mean to do them harm is a foolish philosophy

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

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/graham/051127
The Next Generation of LeadershipThe most important people are the ones that history glosses over and such is the case with Home Schooling families. The presence of kids who were Homeschooled in the 1980s and '90s is beginning to be felt more and more in our cultural life. Dr. Brien Ray did a fascinating study on homeschoolers and found that 73% of homeschoolers 18-24 vote compared to 29% of all people their age. The voting percentage goes up to 95% for people above age 25 and they're three times more likely than their fellow citizens to give political contributions. 74% of homeschoolers have taken college courses, compared to only 46% of the general population. Ironically, homeschoolers who were predicted to be social misfits, are more active and involved in their community's politics than the general population.Parents who chose to make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure their children aren't led astray by the dominant
culture are getting extraordinary results as 94% of homeschoolers are holding to their parents religious beliefs.The Homeschooled kids of the '90s will be the leaders of the next century because of hard work, sacrifice, and loving families. I was homeschooled, but am hardly the best or brightest of the bunch. I never thought about it much as a kid, but having been around both homeschooled and public school kids as an adult, I'm struck by the general courtesy, kindness, and advance vocabulary of homeschooled kids. They're a shining beacon of hope in this present darkness, and a reminder of God's abiding faithfulness.
And the nay sayers said "O NO how are they going to learn to Socialize?"
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

That is fine just DO NOT SAY I CALLED CSL EVIL again or you will prove again that you are a LIAR![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] There he goes againYour games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at the
same time.You are playing games THIRD REQUEST Show us where I called CSL "EVIL" Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth! This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense. Set up your false allegations Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Your games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at the same time. -Original
Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] There he goes againI put him "down" as "evil"? Please -second request - show us whereI said he was evilI simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me. See to it yourself. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have nolasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol.jd -Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except -
possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs upLance likes him because he is so CatholicThe mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god'"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided
what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htmLewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A
Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed
the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

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

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





Blainerb: These are great questions, Lance, I 
don't usually bother, but I even took time to look up some of your words in my 
dictionary to be sure I understood them. :) See my comments in blue 
below:

In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:16:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

  
  Does 'study' matter when it comes to 
  Scripture? What's entailed in this 
'study'?

Study is productive, assuming the Holy Spirit is taken 
as one's guide. Without it, studyresults in "ever learning, 
but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

  
  What is the role of the Holy Spirit 
  inapprehending the 'gospel', the act of exegesis, the act of exposition 
  (either spoken or written), office/sign gifts?

I'd say it is critical. See the parable of the 
Ten Virgins. Those who took the Holy Spirit for their guides were prepared 
to enter into the covenant relationship as the "Bride" to the Bridegroom. 
Those who were not prepared by the Spirit were not spiritually prepared for the 
marriage. 

  
  Is there even the possibility of the entire 
  believing community, globally, coming to a unitary understanding of the entire 
  corpus of Scripture?

Ideally, there is no reason why not. But 
practically speaking, I see little or no hope. Human pride is the reason 
it will never happen. Every man does his own thing, becomes egoistically 
married to his position, and that leads to strife, wherein the devil may then 
play his games amongst us. 

  
  Do even the most mature (godly/holy/sanctified) 
  believers possess only a partial/limited understanding of the Holy 
  Scriptures?
 Ifwe put our foot 
downagainstnew truth when it is introduced, we can hardly claim to 
be Godly/Holy/Sanctified, despite your most carefully constructed facade 
of being otherwise.We can, of course, always resort to being 
sanctimonious, as did the Jews who prayed in public to be heard of men, 
etc. :) 

Do all believers err, at some points, in their 
understanding and therefore, teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Does this 
necessarily represent sin? When as a believer something of your teaching is 
errant relative to ontological truth and, you discover this to be so then, what 
steps ought you to take to rectify the matter vis a vis those who received this 
teaching?

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, but I refer you 
to 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 5-10--I hope this 
might be something of an answer for you:

5"For thus saith the Lord--I the Lord am merciful and 
gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who 
serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6 "Great shall be their reward, and 
eternal shall be their glory.
7 "And to them will I reveal all 
mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make 
known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to 
my kingdom.
8 "Yea, and even the wonders of 
eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things 
of many generations.
9 "And their wisdom shall be 
great, and their understanding reach to heaven, and before them the wisdom of 
the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to 
naught.
10 "For by my spirit will I 
enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my 
will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet 
entered into the heart of man."


  
  Just 
musing..

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?





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

  

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

Ha Ha!!

Blainerb

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Spoken like a true legalist. The effect of your words was topitch Lewis as evil.

jd

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:40:07 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



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




Read your post and figure it out. "Games" is what you are all about, Kevin. The point of your web-work is to show just how harmful Lewis really is. And don't talk to me about "third requests." You have failed, literally, to answer dozens of quetion posed to you. Once again, The gamemeister in you has the rule. 

jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:31:10 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again



Your games don't work with peoplewho actually think and walk upright at the same time.

You are playing games THIRD REQUEST
Show us where I called CSL "EVIL"
Show us the substance of the problem with what I posted.

Or STOP Putting your FALSE ALLEGATIONS in my mouth!
This is the only way you are capable of mounting a defense.
Set up your false allegations 
Attack the Straw Man you just set upAttack the messenger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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



I put him "down" as "evil"?
Please -second request - show us whereI said he was evil

I simply posted CSL's beliefs if you see those beliefs as evil don't blame me.
See to it yourself.






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




Nor do you speak for my friends, Christine. Drive-by postings have nolasting influence. It is amazing that when your side does the very same thing, it is righteous judgment and when the other side does it is a disgrace. Ridiculous and hypocritical. Linda praises CSL, deegan puts him down as evil, I criticize deegan and Linda gets mad at me !! lol.



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


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


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

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





jd



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



Lance likes him because he is so Catholic

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



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



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

Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110),

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

This is a great comment: I think you may not expect more than you are willing to receive,

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:51:34 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Triune God, Holy Scripture Interpretation - Why diverse...

Blainerb: These are great questions, Lance, I don't usually bother, but I even took time to look up some of your words in my dictionary to be sure I understood them. :) See my comments in blue below:

In a message dated 12/7/2005 5:16:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

Does 'study' matter when it comes to Scripture? What's entailed in this 'study'?

Study is productive, assuming the Holy Spirit is taken as one's guide. Without it, studyresults in "ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

What is the role of the Holy Spirit inapprehending the 'gospel', the act of exegesis, the act of exposition (either spoken or written), office/sign gifts?

I'd say it is critical. See the parable of the Ten Virgins. Those who took the Holy Spirit for their guides were prepared to enter into the covenant relationship as the "Bride" to the Bridegroom. Those who were not prepared by the Spirit were not spiritually prepared for the marriage.

Is there even the possibility of the entire believing community, globally, coming to a unitary understanding of the entire corpus of Scripture?

Ideally, there is no reason why not. But practically speaking, I see little or no hope. Human pride is the reason it will never happen. Every man does his own thing, becomes egoistically married to his position, and that leads to strife, wherein the devil may then play his games amongst us.

Do even the most mature (godly/holy/sanctified) believers possess only a partial/limited understanding of the Holy Scriptures?
Ifwe put our foot downagainstnew truth when it is introduced, we can hardly claim to be Godly/Holy/Sanctified, despite your most carefully constructed facade of being otherwise.We can, of course, always resort to being sanctimonious, as did the Jews who prayed in public to be heard of men, etc. :)

Do all believers err, at some points, in their understanding and therefore, teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Does this necessarily represent sin? When as a believer something of your teaching is errant relative to ontological truth and, you discover this to be so then, what steps ought you to take to rectify the matter vis a vis those who received this teaching?

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, but I refer you to 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 5-10--I hope this might be something of an answer for you:

5"For thus saith the Lord--I the Lord am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6 "Great shall be their reward, and eternal shall be their glory.
7 "And to them will I reveal all mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.
8 "Yea, and even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.
9 "And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven, and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.
10 "For by my spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will--yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man."

Just musing..

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE





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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

How is this different from OT days
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ???

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

How is this different from OT days
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ???

-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

Why do we need scripture?
Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith -
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts
But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow
During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit
When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense? It is written, It is written, It is written.
No wonder the professing church is so weak. You would rather do it any way but learn from Him.

If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

jd -

Re: [TruthTalk] Blaine Autumn equinox





Is that what you think I said? You are joking. Or you are as 
usual trying to sidestep the issue; I am therefore assuming you have no answer 
to defendthe hoax your were quoting. 
Blainerb: 

In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:53:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: sda.htm

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

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

WOW you know a lot about that stuff are you an OCCULTIST?

What was with the sacrifice of a Black sheep?

The Author is D M Quinn
He is a commited Mormon.
He is a Professor at BYU
from the publisher:In this ground-breaking book, D. Michael Quinn masterfully
reconstructs an earlier age, finding ample evidence for folk magic in
nineteenth-century New England, as he does in Mormon founder
Joseph Smith's upbringing. Quinn discovers that Smith's world was inhabited
by supernatural creatures whose existence could be both symbolic and real. He
explains that the Smith family's treasure digging was not unusual for the times and is vital to understanding
how early Mormons interpreted developments in their history in ways that
differ from modern perceptions. Quinn's impressive research provides a
much-needed background for the environment that produced Mormonism.

This thoroughly researched
examination into occult traditions surrounding Smith, his family, and other
founding Mormons cannot be understated. Among the practices no longer a part
of Mormonism are the use of divining rods for revelation, astrology to
determine the best times to conceive children and plant crops, the study of
skull contours to understand personality traits, magic formula utilized to
discover lost property, and the wearing of protective talismans. Ninety-four photographs and illustrations accompany the text.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE





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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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




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

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?




In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling 
them, nor did they have
God's Law written on their hearts. They lived in 
a theocracy and Moses had to 
gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every
seven years. jt


On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

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

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

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


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

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE





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


Dave Hansen wrote:

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


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

Dave Hansen wrote:

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



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


Dave Hansen wrote:

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

RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge









You caught me, jd. 











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

















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

















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











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











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





jd





 






























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






 
  
  
   


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





   
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  [Image removed] 
  
  
   


OLYMPUS
DIGITAL CAMERA 


   
  
  
  
  
 




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

Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again

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

Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE





Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the 
Fall?? What sacrilege is this?? :)
Blainerb

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


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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE









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











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























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











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











jd






















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





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











NONSENSE





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





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











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











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





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

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

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





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





Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







DaveH writes:





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











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











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











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











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











Thetrees
in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom. The tree of life is
pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit and this is the tree God

RE: [TruthTalk] A tribute to Perusal knowledge