date:20060325




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."

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