Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Of course it is; JC is the Word of God isn't He? Everytime God speaks - He speaks Truth - and every time it is God the Word - JC Let God be true and every man a liar On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:10:15 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: then Truth ain't JC put yet another way, the notion mouthed is beyond falseness, it is implicitly untrue as is a lie, M'am On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As..we turn Genesis into a statement... jt: ..it's 'a statement of TRUTH'
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
More accurately - the lack of understanding is just plain obdurance in those too full of themselves and their own opinions to yeild to the source of understanding all Truth. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:00:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..also, perceptively: "The Lack of understanding is just laziness of thought and lack of effort." On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:23:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: bullseye; v understandable, Bro! On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:30:28 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Fits the legal definition of LibelJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: || ..you are out there Lance, possibly in the next orbit to Gary.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on
Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the above. but it was enough. Use the Bible as a battle ground AND YOU WILL CONDEMN YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL. Get the educator to admit that his world of knowing is not that much different than the Christian's and you have common ground with which to discuss. You never fight your opponent in his backyard !! Since TT is almost over - one more story. My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job. Her boss was an atheist. She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process. "Dad, how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?" "Julie, you don't even try. Do this -- explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for their beliefs and then ask him, 'Bruce, don't you think you should at least examine what it was they died for ?" He told her he was prepared for any response but that one !! That opened a door that was slammed shut two weeks later in his drowning death at the lake. Was there light in life because of that talk? I like to think there was. jd -- Original mes
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order
Why? What do they do for you? It's all about him, his thoughts, his opinions, the movies he sees, etc. etc. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES! From: Kevin Deegan Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Dodging the question, as usual. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you > would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the > words? Probably got it comin'. > > Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > creationism) > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. >> Pathetic IMO. izzy >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> Still no. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? >>> JD? >>> izzy >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >>> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it >>> then, >>> I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools >>> either. >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > Lance wrote: >> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then >> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > > I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to > be > separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have > submitted > unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. > > Lance wrote: >> He is a brother in Christ who believes >> differently than you on some matters. >> Now, if that makes him what you say >> then, that makes you what I say. > > He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The > moniker > was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our > Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, > assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in > Christ, > then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other > believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will > continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the > acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was > very > damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the > Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the > acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists > but > not > from theologians, and certainly not from the Right
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
myth (apparently JCs compadre Peter (e.g.) could tell from various Synoptic conversations inc the one in Matt 17 that Moses wasn't a liar; also, JC himself, who never wrote a word of Moses' Pentateuch usually refered to it as to Scripture, by definition true, referring only to its author: Moses) On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:16:18 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar -- for ref: On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:10:15 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..[jt's] notion ['JC is Truth'] ..is beyond falseness, it is implicitly untrue as is a lie, M'am On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As..we turn Genesis into a statement... jt: ..it's 'a statement of TRUTH'
[TruthTalk] Fw: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 24, 2006 21:02 Subject: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys I was afraid this was too long, but David's leisurely post has given me courage to blather a little, like the parting guest who suddenly becomes talkative in the doorway. I’m glad for the time I spent on TT, even though I left. I did learn stuff, especially early on as I encountered some ideas for the first time; certain posts, especially at the beginning, opened windows for me. Even some of the more plodding discussions were an occasion for clarifying my own thinking or, alternatively, fuzzifying it if it was a little too sharp! And that may have been the best benefit of TT. I remember being surprised at the very beginning by the aggressiveness—a newish thing for me among believers even though I’ve moved in a wide variety of Christian circles. The exposure wasn’t all bad--it made me a bit more assertive and thicker-skinned, and forced me to recognize how easily I can be provoked to snarkiness myself. But I often felt sad after an exchange. Sometimes, on the other hand, I was completely taken aback by the generosity and affirmation in people's responses. So I hope that if the experience has made me less naive about the behaviour of Christians, it hasn't gone so far as to make me cynical. I still think I might have misunderstood the culture of TT...I'm not very astute that way. I’ve seen something of the serious limitations of e-mail, and yet I feel like I’ve met real people. I found every character on TT interesting and memorable, and enjoyed the different ‘flavours’ and the occasional anecdotal glimpses into people’s lives. I'd love to meet you all face to face. In the eschaton if not before! Thank you, Lance, for introducing me to TT and encouraging me to participate--an act so beautifully typical of you. But I especially want to thank David: you relentlessly engaged everybody, no matter how intractable, and even at your crazy-makingest you had the best manners of all--or at least made the best show of manners! J To me, the act of keeping this forum so wide open as long as you did, and the latitude you have given people to be themselves, show a broadness above and beyond your words that commands my respect. Just to irritate some of you, I was going to finish with an excerpt quoting Bonhoeffer on how we reflect Christ to each other, from the chapter I've just finished working on in Victor's book. Instead, here's something less lofty, which for me is a kind of parable for TT: I'm watching my husband gently heave our sleeping youngest son up from the living room couch where he has repaired in frustration at his brother's endless, irritating snores. He had taken his pillow and blankets there after incrementally severe degrees of poking and bedshaking had failed to correct his brother's breathing. But now he falls forward into his dad's arms, willingly allows himself to be moved, and wakes up as he is conducted by hands on his shoulders back to his own bed. He crawls in beneath the bunk of his brother who snores impenitently on, and settles back to sleep. This is repeated two or three times a week, but is always forgotten in the morning, and neither brother will tolerate talk of separate bedrooms. Open hands, everybody, and Jude 24 & 25. Love Debbie --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on
Wow; quite a memorable story, jd. Thanks, iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since TT is almost over - one more story. My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job. Her boss was an atheist. She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process. "Dad, how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?" "Julie, you don't even try. Do this -- explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for their beliefs and then ask him, 'Bruce, don't you think you should at least examine what it was they died for ?" He told her he was prepared for any response but that one !! That opened a door that was slammed shut two weeks later in his drowning death at the lake. Was there light in life because of that talk? I like to think there was. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Isn’t that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Can’t Say That” Canadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity — includ
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
IZ:No, I would not. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Dodging the question, as usual. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the words? Probably got it comin'. Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. creationism) - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] an
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Matthew 11:12 " From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:36 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: Kevin Deegan Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march I was responding to this jewel: violent thinking is not violent action > And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway? -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If I am talking like Hill & North it must be a typo or More Likely a Parity Error on your end! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one's talking about "thought police," Kev. If you want to talk like Hill and North - expect the rest of us who listen to you to think you are of the same ilk, denials not withstanding. That's all I am saying. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > violent thinking is not violent action > And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway? > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > IFO can accept this self-characterization. But when your words sound > > like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in > > your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named > > above. > > > > jd > > > > -- Original message -- > > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you > > agree > > > with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) > > > Which is it Lance? I do not understa nd such behavior it seems > > > irrational to me. > > > > > > I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. > > > > > > Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of > > > MccarthyISM. > > > The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal > > > thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. > > > Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! > > > > > > The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. > > > You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the > > right to > > > violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! > > > > > > --- Lance Muir wrote: > > > > > > > Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no > > matter > > > > who asks? > > > > > > > > So, K evin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what > > you > > > > do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder > > that > > > > SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere > > else! > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking to me, Gary North? > > > > > > > > Lance Muir wrote: > > > > My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a > > > > civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a > > > > > > moral society is an improvement on an immoral one... Granted that > & gt; ; some > > > > attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, > > by > > > > the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on > > > > > > that which opposes the foregoing. > > > > > > > > Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine > > > > > > 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? > > I do > > > > believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that > > upon > > > > which you focus (signage wise and all). > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > < BR>& gt; > > > The Canadian Guanatamo > > > > Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! > > > > Are you hating an identifiable group? > > > > And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as > > > > an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) > > > > Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? > > > > > > > > Justice in Canaduh > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ > > > > > > passed his second year of incarceration without charge > > > > Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to > > > > know all the evidence against him. > > > > Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related > > > > > > > > Canadian Human Rights Commission "The trut h in some absolute > > > > sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social cont
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on
Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the above. but it was enough. Use the Bible as a battle ground AND YOU WILL CONDEMN YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL. Get the educator to admit that his world of knowing is not that much different than the Christian's and you have common ground with which to discuss. You never fight your opponent in his backyard !! Since TT is almost over - one more story. My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job. Her boss was an atheist. She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process. "Dad, how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?" "Julie, you don't even try. Do this -- explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is absolutely content free talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what goes on in your your posts. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order
z -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why? What do they do for you? It's all about him, his thoughts, his opinions, the movies he sees, etc. etc. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES! From: Kevin Deegan Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys
“Snarkiness” I like that. Blessing, Debbie, to you and yours. I’ll miss your beautiful writing talent. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:24 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 24, 2006 21:02 Subject: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys I was afraid this was too long, but David's leisurely post has given me courage to blather a little, like the parting guest who suddenly becomes talkative in the doorway. I’m glad for the time I spent on TT, even though I left. I did learn stuff, especially early on as I encountered some ideas for the first time; certain posts, especially at the beginning, opened windows for me. Even some of the more plodding discussions were an occasion for clarifying my own thinking or, alternatively, fuzzifying it if it was a little too sharp! And that may have been the best benefit of TT. I remember being surprised at the very beginning by the aggressiveness—a newish thing for me among believers even though I’ve moved in a wide variety of Christian circles. The exposure wasn’t all bad--it made me a bit more assertive and thicker-skinned, and forced me to recognize how easily I can be provoked to snarkiness myself. But I often felt sad after an exchange. Sometimes, on the other hand, I was completely taken aback by the generosity and affirmation in people's responses. So I hope that if the experience has made me less naive about the behaviour of Christians, it hasn't gone so far as to make me cynical. I still think I might have misunderstood the culture of TT...I'm not very astute that way. I’ve seen something of the serious limitations of e-mail, and yet I feel like I’ve met real people. I found every character on TT interesting and memorable, and enjoyed the different ‘flavours’ and the occasional anecdotal glimpses into people’s lives. I'd love to meet you all face to face. In the eschaton if not before! Thank you, Lance, for introducing me to TT and encouraging me to participate--an act so beautifully typical of you. But I especially want to thank David: you relentlessly engaged everybody, no matter how intractable, and even at your crazy-makingest you had the best manners of all--or at least made the best show of manners! J To me, the act of keeping this forum so wide open as long as you did, and the latitude you have given people to be themselves, show a broadness above and beyond your words that commands my respect. Just to irritate some of you, I was going to finish with an excerpt quoting Bonhoeffer on how we reflect Christ to each other, from the chapter I've just finished working on in Victor's book. Instead, here's something less lofty, which for me is a kind of parable for TT: I'm watching my husband gently heave our sleeping youngest son up from the living room couch where he has repaired in frustration at his brother's endless, irritating snores. He had taken his pillow and blankets there after incrementally severe degrees of poking and bedshaking had failed to correct his brother's breathing. But now he falls forward into his dad's arms, willingly allows himself to be moved, and wakes up as he is conducted by hands on his shoulders back to his own bed. He crawls in beneath the bunk of his brother who snores impenitently on, and settles back to sleep. This is repeated two or three times a week, but is always forgotten in the morning, and neither brother will tolerate talk of separate bedrooms. Open hands, everybody, and Jude 24 & 25. Love Debbie -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of us aren't following your logic? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism IZ:No, I would not. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > . > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, >> you >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those >> the >> words? Probably got it comin'. >> >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. >> creationism) >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's >>> left. >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> Still no. >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > Williams > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > David Miller > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > DOUBLE > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > believe, > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > you > and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple > yikes) > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> Lance wrote: >>> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then >>> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. >> >> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought >> to >> be >> separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have >> submitted >> unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. >> >> Lance wrote: >>> He is a brother in Christ who believes >>> differently than you on some matters. >>> Now, if that makes him what you say >>> then, that makes you what I say. >> >> He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The >> moniker >> was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our >> Cr
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Wow; now we are accused of being “feminists”. LOL! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order
(good nite--thx for the subtle reminder:) On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:34:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: z -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why? What do they do for you? It's all about him, his thoughts, his opinions, the movies he sees, etc. etc. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES! From: Kevin Deegan Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys
Amen and thank you. John -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 24, 2006 21:02 Subject: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys I was afraid this was too long, but David's leisurely post has given me courage to blather a little, like the parting guest who suddenly becomes talkative in the doorway. Im glad for the time I spent on TT, even though I left. I did learn stuff, especially early on as I encountered some ideas for the first time; certain posts, especially at the beginning, opened windows for me. Even some of the more plodding discussions were an occasion for clarifying my own thinking or, alternatively, fuzzifying it if it was a little too sharp! And that may have been the best benefit of TT. I remember being surprised at the very beginning by the aggressivenessa newish thing for me among believers even though Ive moved in a wide variety of Christian circles. The exposure wasnt all bad--it made me a bit more assertive and thicker-skinned, and forced me to recognize how easily I can be provoked to snarkiness myself. But I often felt sad after an exchange. Sometimes, on the other hand, I was completely taken aback by the generosity and affirmation in people's responses. So I hope that if the experience has made me less naive about the behaviour of Christians, it hasn't gone so far as to make me cynical. I still think I might have misunderstood the culture of TT...I'm not very astute that way. < /FONT> Ive seen something of the serious limitations of e-mail, and yet I feel like Ive met real people. I found every character on TT interesting and memorable, and enjoyed the different flavours and the occasional anecdotal glimpses into peoples lives. I'd love to meet you all face to face. In the eschaton if not before! Thank you, Lance, for introducing me to TT and encouraging me to participate--an act so beautifully typical of you. But I especially want to thank David: you relentlessly engaged everybody, no matter how intractable, and even at your crazy-makingest you had the best manners of all--or at least made the best show of manners! J To me, the act of keeping this forum so wide open as long as you did, and the latitude you have given people to be themselves, show a broadness above and beyond your words that commands my respect. Just to irritate some of you, I was going to finish with an excerpt quoting Bonhoeffer on how we reflect Christ to each other, from the chapter I've just finished working on in Victor's book. Instead, here's something less lofty, which for me is a kind of parable for TT: I'm watching my husband gently heave our sleeping youngest son up from the living room couch where he has repaired in frustration at his brother's endless, irritating snores. He had taken his pillow and blankets there after incrementally severe degrees of poking and bedshaking had failed to correct his brother's breathing. But now he falls forward into his dad's arms, willingly allows himself to be moved, and wakes up as he is conducted by hands on his shoulders back to his own bed. He crawls in beneath the bunk of his brother who snores impenitently on, and sett les back to sleep. This is repeated two or three times a week, but is always forgotten in the morning, and neither brother will tolerate talk of separate bedrooms. Open hands, everybody, and Jude 24 & 25. Love Debbie --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
..yer Words iz yer bond(age) Babe On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:38:47 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wow; now we are accused of being “feminists”. LOL! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
[TruthTalk]
From WorldNetDaily.com: Rome, 22 March (AKI) - Abdul Rahman, the man condemned to death for having abandoned Islam, is just one of many Afghanis who decide to convert to Christianity, but most are forced to do so secretly, argues Arab Christian author Camille Eid. In an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) Eid, author of "The Christians who come from Islam", said during a recent trip to Afghanistan he met many similar cases. "They are Christians who have sprung out of nowhere and it's unclear how they have decided by themselves to convert" he added. The US, Italy, Germany and Canada have all expressed concern over the fate of Rahman who converted to Christianity 16 years ago. "I also spoke to a priest who had passed through Kabul and he said he was amazed that women sitting on the ground at the local market saw he was a foreigner and a Christian, by the cross he was wearing, and attracted his attention to them by making a sign of the cross with their fingers. He was convinced that they were trying to send him a coded message" said Eid, a Lebanese Maronite who lives in Italy. According to the author, Abdul Rahman is not the first Afghan citizen to have been sentenced to death for apostasy since the fall of the Taliban regime. "The Islamic Taliban militias who still control entire areas of the country issued a statement in June 2004 in which they referred to a death sentence handed down to an Afghan converted to Christianity, Moulawi Asad Allah."
RE: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
[TruthTalk] Lack of Sleep Led to Dinosaurs' Demise
And I thought it was just because they were too big to fit on the ark! J izzy 'Lack of deep sleep led to dinosaurs' demise' RHIANNON EDWARD DINOSAURS were most likely killed off because they never got a good night's sleep, scientists have claimed. Giant meteorites from outer space, fire storms, tidal waves and an ice age have all been suggested by experts to explain the demise of T-Rex and other giant dinosaurs. However, the latest theory to explain their extinction claims they did not survive because their reptilian sleeping patterns meant their brains did not learn new skills properly. Unlike mammals and birds, reptiles are unable to experience slow wave sleep, the type of sleep believed to be responsible for boosting memories, especially those connected to performing new tasks. As a result, reptiles are much more limited in the type of complex behaviour they can experience than other animals such as mammals and birds. The implication of new research by Niels Rattenborg, of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, is that the inability of dinosaurs - which are ancestors of modern-day reptiles - to experience slow wave sleep may have been one of the reasons why they became extinct. Slow wave - or deep - sleep leads to enhancements in both learning and physical performance. It effectively shuts down the parts of the brain that have learned new skills and allows this learning to become consolidated without interruption. Without this crucial ability it could be that, when the earth experienced huge climatic changes towards the end of the era of the dinosaurs, they were unable to pick up sufficient new tricks to learn their way out of extinction. The research also shows that, although birds and mammals appear to have developed the same brain structures and, importantly, the same series of connections between structures that allow slow wave sleep to take place, these developments must have happened independently. Despite the common ancestry of birds and reptiles among the dinosaurs, regarding sleep at least it is in fact birds and mammals that have more in common in terms of brain structure and function. The paper is published by Elsevier in its journal Brain Research Bulletin.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > > DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > > believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > > you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple > > yikes) > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> Lance wrote: > >&g t;> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then > >>> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > >> > >> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought > >> to > >> be > >
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
as the accumulating evidence suggests, certain Words do reveal precisely many monotonous mutual monolithic musings mangling males On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:39:37 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
[TruthTalk] The violent take it by force.....
From WorldNetDaily.com. Church members beat, hog-tie burglary suspect NEWS 12 Staff Report Friday, March 24, 2006 Parishioners fed up with a string of burglaries at their West Palm Beach church took matters into their own hands by capturing and hog-tying a man who climbed in through a window early this morning. Armed with baseball bats, members of the Church of Nazarene at 5312 Broadway spent the night in the building to guard it. Video: Burglary suspect nabbed, tied up More crime coverage • Post crime blog • PBC wanted fugitives • Live police/fire scanners • Booking log, sex offenders Sound off: Your views More local news Latest breaking news, photos and all of today's Post stories. • State news Storm 2006: Hurricane news • Sound off in the forum • Columnists • Crime, live scanners • Photos | Special reports • Weather | Traffic | Obituaries At about 1 this morning, a man broke in. Church members were waiting for him inside. They beat him with their bats and tied him up with tape. Police identified the burglary suspect as Ralph Thomas. Thomas was treated at a local hospital and charged with burglary and possession of burglary tools.
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Nothing tacit here. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:56 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism as the accumulating evidence suggests, certain Words do reveal precisely many monotonous mutual monolithic musings mangling males On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:39:37 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
cf Michael Polanyi - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..yer Words iz yer bond(age) Babe On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:38:47 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Wow; now we are accused of being feminists. LOL! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
[TruthTalk] Archaeologist uses Scripture
Archaeologist uses Scripture to uncover King David's palace 'I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other' http://www.momentmag.com/olam/Apr06/MOM-2006-04_mazar.html (Why can’t the mormons do this with their “bible”??? J izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
So IYO it is better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I see…. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > > DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > > believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > > you > > and, what you now do
RE: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms
We have at leat three general patterns represented here on TT: 1. Drive-by or protest evangelism. 2. Ivory tower evangelism. 3. Mentor evangelism. I have made my choice. Enough said. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Creationism
many males mangling monotonous mutual monolithic musings J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:57 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism as the accumulating evidence suggests, certain Words do reveal precisely many monotonous mutual monolithic musings mangling males On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:39:37 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk]
At GWB rallies only 'supporters' are permitted within 'range'.Those who have a different 'belief system' (the obduart to employ Judy's most recent favourite word) are at risk. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:45 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] From WorldNetDaily.com: Rome, 22 March (AKI) - Abdul Rahman, the man condemned to death for having abandoned Islam, is just one of many Afghanis who decide to convert to Christianity, but most are forced to do so secretly, argues Arab Christian author Camille Eid. In an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) Eid, author of "The Christians who come from Islam", said during a recent trip to Afghanistan he met many similar cases. "They are Christians who have sprung out of nowhere and it's unclear how they have decided by themselves to convert" he added. The US, Italy, Germany and Canada have all expressed concern over the fate of Rahman who converted to Christianity 16 years ago. "I also spoke to a priest who had passed through Kabul and he said he was amazed that women sitting on the ground at the local market saw he was a foreigner and a Christian, by the cross he was wearing, and attracted his attention to them by making a sign of the cross with their fingers. He was convinced that they were trying to send him a coded message" said Eid, a Lebanese Maronite who lives in Italy.According to the author, Abdul Rahman is not the first Afghan citizen to have been sentenced to death for apostasy since the fall of the Taliban regime. "The Islamic Taliban militias who still control entire areas of the country issued a statement in June 2004 in which they referred to a death sentence handed down to an Afghan converted to Christianity, Moulawi Asad Allah."
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
I seem to recall that Carroll was a feminist. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:38 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Creationism Wow; now we are accused of being feminists. LOL! iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of us aren't following your logic? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism IZ:No, I would not. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Dodging the question, as usual. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the words? Probably got it comin'. Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. creationism) - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expressio
Re: [TruthTalk] Lack of Sleep Led to Dinosaurs' Demise
Science is great -- but this is a good illustration of just how ridiculous even scientist can get. So it only took the Big Lizard how many millions of years to say "Good night and good luck?" -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And I thought it was just because they were too big to fit on the ark! J izzy 'Lack of deep sleep led to dinosaurs' demise' RHIANNON EDWARD DINOSAURS were most likely killed off because they never got a good night's sleep, scientists have claimed. Giant meteorites from outer space, fire storms, tidal waves and an ice age have all been suggested by experts to explain the demise of T-Rex and other giant dinosaurs. However, the latest theory to explain their extinction claims they did not survive because their reptilian sleeping patterns meant their brains did not learn new skills properly. Unlike mammals and birds, reptiles are unable to experience slow wave sleep, the type of sleep believed to be responsible for boosting memories, especially those connected to performing new tasks. As a result, reptiles are much more limited in the type of complex behaviour they can experience than other animals such as mammals and birds. The implication of new research by Niels Rattenborg, of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, is that the inability of dinosaurs - which are ancestors of modern-day reptiles - to experience slow wave sleep may have been one of the reasons why they became extinct. Slow wave - or deep - sleep leads to enhancements in both learning and physical performance. It effectively shuts down the parts of the brain that have learned new skills and allows this learning to become consolidated without interruption. Without this crucial ability it could be that, when the earth experienced huge climatic changes towards the end of the era of the dinosaurs, they were unable to pick up sufficient new tricks to learn their way out of extinction. The research also shows that, although birds and mammals appear to have developed the same brain structures and, importantly, the same series of connections between structures that allow slow wave sleep to take place, these developments must have happened independently. Despite the common ancestry of birds and reptiles among the dinosaurs, regarding sleep at least it is in fact birds and mammals that have more in common in terms of brain structure and function. The paper is published by Elsevier in its journal Brain Research Bulletin.
[TruthTalk] Fw: from Gilead
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 24, 2006 22:00 Subject: from Gilead Hi David. I'm reading the novel Gilead by Marilynne Robinson, a letter from a dying pastor to his son. Just for fun, here's a paragraph I read a minute ago that contained a few echoes, for me, of what you said in today's conversation (Lance, I don't know if you were there for all of what David said): I believe the old man did indeed have far too narrow an idea of what a vision might be. He may, so to speak, have been too dazzled by the great light of his experience to realize that an impressive sun shines on us all. Perhaps that is the one thing I wish to tell you. Sometimes the visionary aspect of any particular day comes to you in the memory of it, or it opens to you over time. For example, whenever I take a child into my arms to be baptized, I am, so to speak, comprehended in the experience more fully, having seen more of life, knowing better what it means to affirm the sacredness of the human creature. I believe there are visions that come to us only in memory, in retrospect. That's the pulpit speaking, but it's telling the truth. Debbie --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
I have been aware of such musings, myself. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the accumulating evidence suggests, certain Words do reveal precisely many monotonous mutual monolithic musings mangling males On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:39:37 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
[TruthTalk] Noah Webster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > > DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > > believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > > you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes!
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
You JD have rejected substance unless conformed to your liking and by then it is no longer substance but mixture. So what would be the point?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:33:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is absolutely content free talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what goes on in your your posts. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory?
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. Hmm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be > true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some > of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> Dodging the question, as usual. iz >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. >> >> . >> - Original Message - >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, >>> you >>> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those >>> the >>> words? Probably got it comin'. >>> >>> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. >>> creationism) >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, >> Williams >> said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." >> >> So how have I mischaracterized him? >> >> David Miller >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >> David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. >> DOUBLE >> YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly >> trapped, >> David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you >> believe, >> Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done >> to >> you >> and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple >> yikes) >> - Original Message - >> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> Lance wrote: If Williams is a
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated,
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I see…. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Not so; the statement of a man of God inspired by the Spirit of God "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged" On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
which is certainly closer than ever to your actual opinion On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:04:46 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: many males mangling monotonous mutual monolithic musings ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Perhaps a poor analogy. But we didn’t know how to miraculously turn the old house into a new one….we weren’t likely to live long enough. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:18 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isn’t that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Can’t Say That” Canadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Lo
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you choose shallowness of thought you become . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. Hmm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of us aren't following your logic? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism IZ:No, I would not. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Dodging the question, as usual. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the words? Probably got it comin'. Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. creationism) - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Chri
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
RE: [TruthTalk] Creationism
many mentally mangled malevolent males’ monotonous mutual monolithic musings From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:20 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism which is certainly closer than ever to your actual opinion On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:04:46 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: many males mangling monotonous mutual monolithic musings ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the abov
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Make that 5 posts. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You JD have rejected substance unless conformed to your liking and by then it is no longer substance but mixture. So what would be the point?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:33:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is absolutely content free talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what goes on in your your posts. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the Left and Right. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you choose shallowness of thought you become . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. > Hmm > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be >> true >> you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some >> of >> us aren't following your logic? iz >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> IZ:No, I would not. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> Dodging the question, as usual. iz >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. >>> >>> . >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >>> >>> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the words? Probably got it comin'. Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. creationism) - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's > left. > Pathetic IMO. izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Still no. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > >> If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, >> Lance? >> JD? >> izzy >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it >> then, >> I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools >> either. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism >> >> >>> The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, >>> Williams >>> said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." >>> >>> So how have I mischaracterized him? >>> >>> David Miller >>> >>> >>>
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
Well He (Jesus) was and He wasn't. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Judy, IMO, actually can't discern some of the issues as written. Iz, on the other hand, IMO can but chooses to write as if she didn't. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
I'd never suggest that you 'live in fear' nor do I believe that you would. Just BE REAL, (wo)man! - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 07:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the Left and Right. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you choose shallowness of thought you become . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. Hmm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of us aren't following your logic? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism IZ:No, I would not. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Dodging the question, as usual. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. . - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the words? Probably got it comin'. Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. creationism) - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. Pathetic IMO. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Still no. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not
RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon one’s neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. I’m not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
“That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright.” Was that in your pre-Neanderthal days, or after? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon ones neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. Im not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Willia
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
With man , it is impossible but with God, it is possible. Your illustration is more to the point that we are saved by the miracle of God apart from our works. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perhaps a poor analogy. But we didnt know how to miraculously turn the old house into a new one .we werent likely to live long enough. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:18 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see thi s as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
How long Oh David, how long? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:32 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I see…. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.in
RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Funny, my ex-husband referred to Christianity as “fantasyland”. I told him I’d rather live in “fantasyland” than in hell with him. Same to you and your belief system, I guess. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon one’s neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. I’m not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Not exactly; the new house works wonderfully!!! J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:36 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march With man , it is impossible but with God, it is possible. Your illustration is more to the point that we are saved by the miracle of God apart from our works. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perhaps a poor analogy. But we didn’t know how to miraculously turn the old house into a new one….we weren’t likely to live long enough. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:18 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isn’t that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see thi s as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
And forbid other theories that are “politically incorrect.” From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:36 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I see…. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
I’d rather ride a high horse than wallow with pigs. J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:39 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isn’t that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Can’t Say That” Canadian thought poli
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Then Willard will have to re evaluate - in this area anyway God is not in the business of renovation. He does not put new wine in old wineskins. It's a new covenant (Heb 8:8) for a new ppl in Christ (see 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Gal 6:15). The heavens and earth will not be renovated either, they will also be made new (see (2 Pet 3:13, Rev 21:1). You believe Willard if you want to - I prefer the higher authority. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:08:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. From: ShieldsFamily Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts!
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Linda -- politically, I am a rightwinger -- but who went to war for what reason? And, did you miss Lnace's good point? What kind of fit will you pitch when the Muslim population wins a court fight to teach their view of whats happening now in our schools !!?? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the > Left and Right. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow > turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran > > (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you > choose shallowness of thought you become > > . > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] DSFAMILY.COM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. > > Hmm > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> S o, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be > >> true > >> you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some > >> of > >> us aren't following your logic? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> IZ:No, I would not. > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> Dodging the question, as usual. iz > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > >>> > >>> . > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > you > would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > the > words? Probably got it comin'. > > Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > creationism) > > > - Original Message - > &g t;>>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's > > left. > > Pathetic IMO. izzy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > Still no. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, > >> Lance? > >> JD? > >> izzy > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Do you still harbor that much hatred? Sad! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Funny, my ex-husband referred to Christianity as fantasyland. I told him Id rather live in fantasyland than in hell with him. Same to you and your belief system, I guess. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon ones neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. Im not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Which is just continuing on doing what they are already doing but all but the most gullible have enough sense to know there are no part monkey/part humans on this planet . On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:36:20 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I see…. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that unt
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
You don't know me JD, never have and never will ... not at this rate anyway As a man believeth in his heart, so is he On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him.
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Hatred? To me it sounds like good sense My late father in law used to respond to the pundits who said the church was full of hypocrites the same way ie: "I'd rather go to church with them than go to hell with them.." On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:43:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do you still harbor that much hatred? Sad! From: ShieldsFamily Funny, my ex-husband referred to Christianity as fantasyland. I told him Id rather live in fantasyland than in hell with him. Same to you and your belief system, I guess. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? From: ShieldsFamily More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon ones neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. Im not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
We wouldn’t be HAVING a problem with Muslims if we hadn’t thrown God out of the government and schools a long time ago! (duh) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Linda -- politically, I am a rightwinger -- but who went to war for what reason? And, did you miss Lnace's good point? What kind of fit will you pitch when the Muslim population wins a court fight to teach their view of whats happening now in our schools !!?? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the > Left and Right. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow > turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran > > (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you > choose shallowness of thought you become > > . > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] DSFAMILY.COM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. > > Hmm > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> S o, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be > >> true > >> you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some > >> of > >> us aren't following your logic? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> IZ:No, I would not. > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> Dodging the question, as usual. iz > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > >>> > >>> . > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > you > would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > the > words? Probably got it comin'. > > Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > creationism) > > > - Original Message - > &g t;>>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's > > left. > > Pathetic IMO. izzy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > Still no. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent
RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Hatred??? Not in the least. Just good sense IMO. Where you “live” looks like hell to me. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Do you still harbor that much hatred? Sad! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Funny, my ex-husband referred to Christianity as “fantasyland”. I told him I’d rather live in “fantasyland” than in hell with him. Same to you and your belief system, I guess. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon one’s neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. I’m not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet? The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with energy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration withou
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Pretty pithy. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:46 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Post-haste palpable posturings of pretend pundits. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:40 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march I’d rather ride a high horse than wallow with pigs. J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:39 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isn’t that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, pro
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAI
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
FWIW (not much) I do not see you as carnal, Judy. I see you as a spirited 'spiritual' woman who would be wise never to reveal herself on a forum like this ever, ever again. You 'read' carnal but, when one sees through into your heart, you are anything but. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march You don't know me JD, never have and never will ... not at this rate anyway As a man believeth in his heart, so is he On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group?
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
Me, a shotgun, five weeks, a trot line, lots of dead bluejays (their breast meat is the same as dove), all the wild mushrooms, onions, clover, young cattails (looks a bit like celery) I could eat -- watching the cute little Humming Birds bite and devour one another -- probably the meanest little animal I have ever sat watched (hey, it beat T.V.) -- you remember that story ? sure glad I speak the truth (in love, of course.) :--) -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I believe he's still in his neanderthal days? What WAS that story 'bout eatin' birds in the wilderness for a year or so? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:30 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. Was that in your pre-Neanderthal days, or after? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:25 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on a nd on If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and Europe will go with it - at present when the US sneezes the rest of the world catch a cold. Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness gracious! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirMost on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. From: ShieldsFamily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
'Snarky'? You made your bed, Iz. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:55 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Hatred??? Not in the least. Just good sense IMO. Where you live looks like hell to me. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:43 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Do you still harbor that much hatred? Sad! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Funny, my ex-husband referred to Christianity as fantasyland. I told him Id rather live in fantasyland than in hell with him. Same to you and your belief system, I guess. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster No wonder you favour homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of decaying infrastructure? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:28 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster More liberal negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon ones neighbor. This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. Im not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Most on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:13 Subject: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
LOL we're talking serious humor. I am laughing too hard to do anything but go and put the coffee on. Back in a few. -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> How long Oh David, how long? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:32 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Me s sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >&g t; > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthT
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Here's an idea -- maybe the church could actually do its job !! You know, instead of paying the local school district to do it. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actua lly Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sen
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Who spoke the worlds into existence? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well He (Jesus) was and He wasn't. From: Judy Taylor Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
The 'prophet' (take note, David) said otherwise in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate at the USA. Size does matter but, it's not the only thing that matters. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 08:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and Europe will go with it - at present when the US sneezes the rest of the world catch a cold. Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness gracious! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirMost on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. From: ShieldsFamily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
You, Judy, could teach researching. However, you could not teach 'conclusions'! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I pre
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
Sometimes I think that I did but, those are not my good days, Judy.I do know that the world will cease to exist when I cease to exist. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Who spoke the worlds into existence? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well He (Jesus) was and He wasn't. From: Judy Taylor Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly d
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
You've got to be kidding; right now most of the church isn't doing it's job in the church let alone out there in the world. I suppose you have noted the preacher's wife shooting her husband in the back in TN and they are CofC. Wonder what underlies that tragedy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:07:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's an idea -- maybe the church could actually do its job !! You know, instead of paying the local school district to do it. jd From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creat
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet? The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with energy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E.
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
I have a hard time taking these kinds of prophets seriously Lance. I remember when Pat Robertson was predicting the demise of our monetary system in the early 1980's I guess you could say your prophet is true and Pat is false. I'm not critical of PR however, he has missed it many times but he is one of the only two men in the US that I have heard calling Islam what it is. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:09:29 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The 'prophet' (take note, David) said otherwise in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate at the USA. Size does matter but, it's not the only thing that matters. From: Judy Taylor Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and Europe will go with it - at present when the US sneezes the rest of the world catch a cold. Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness gracious! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirMost on TT will live to see the implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a new one. From: ShieldsFamily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster As a teacher, he had come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to read. Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is reported that Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language ) Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the translation, Webster used the King James Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Me s sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> >
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Jesus used the word often. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:05 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The 'if road' can be walked on only hypothetically, Iz. We all spend time there don't we? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:54 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism We wouldn’t be HAVING a problem with Muslims if we hadn’t thrown God out of the government and schools a long time ago! (duh) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Linda -- politically, I am a rightwinger -- but who went to war for what reason? And, did you miss Lnace's good point? What kind of fit will you pitch when the Muslim population wins a court fight to teach their view of whats happening now in our schools !!?? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the > Left and Right. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow > turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran > > (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you > choose shallowness of thought you become > > . > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] DSFAMILY.COM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. > > Hmm > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> S o, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be > >> true > >> you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some > >> of > >> us aren't following your logic? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> IZ:No, I would not. > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> Dodging the question, as usual. iz > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > >>> > >>> . > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > you > would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > the > words? Probably got it comin'. > > Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > creationism) > > > - Original Message - > &g t;>>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So you prefer that u