Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

I agree David - I did and Perry has brought that to my attention; I know
better and have repented.  After I sent that lightning zapped our modem
during
a thunder storm so I've had time to recover.  This laptop is
uncomfortable - we
are going out this a.m. to find another modem.  I hear you.   judyt


On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:39:51 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Judy wrote:
> > So Mr. Answer Man - I know you have it all
> > sewed up with your "incarnational" doctrine and
> > all, noone has to sweat it - not anyone, least of
> > all you.  You can spend all of your time in worldliness
> > and carnality and when you hear the trumpet and
> > it's time of the Marriage Supper just barge in  holding
> > on to your doctrine. Matters not whether or not you
> > are wearing the right garment.  Just tell them TFT said
> 
> See what I mean, Lance?  You pushed Judy over the edge.
> 
> Judy, you crossed over the line with this one.  Try to stay away 
> from the 
> personal and stick with the issues and away from addressing Lance 
> personally.  Thanks.
> 
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller. 
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:15:53 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  I believe that Philip 2:12-13 presents us with the teaching that God is 
  the reason for  our will to do the right thing and our ability to 
  accomplish such   --   that this applies to 
  all of mankind since the Reconciliation  (Col 1:17-24).  When I read that "No man comes to me except 
  the Father draws him,"  I think of this Philip passage.   And 
  in John 3:21,  I see this thinking confirmed.  In that passage, we 
  practice the truth and (then) come to the Light.   Christ manifests 
  or reveals that this practice of truth was actually accomplish  "in 
  God."   Before coming to Christ,  I have a relationship of 
  sorts with God.   This is why repentance is so 
  important.   Before repentance, God is a work in me but I am not his 
  partner  --  not a good thing.   After repentance,  I 
  have fellowship  or "joint participation"  with God  
  (Philip 2:1).   
   
  Judy: JD you need to take ALL scripture into consideration. John 3:36 
  teaches that the wrath of God CONTINUES
  to abide on those who do not believe the Son.  I don't get the idea 
  that God is working in them when His wrath
  CONTINUES to abide on them.  What would make you believe 
this??
   
   
  Repentance is a change of mind  -  getting things right in our 
  minds  --  a turning around.  When I "receive the 
  Spirit,"  I am accepting a gifted presence already a part of who I am as 
  a result of reconciliation.  In Christ, the works of God 
  (done  even  before I came  into light) are 
  manifested to be the works of God, Himself  (again--John3:21).  Read for yourself and see how 
  this passage (John 3:21) is related to John 3:3  and the other passages I 
  have mentioned. JD
   
  Judy:  John you are leaving out great blocks 
  of truth; when I read what you write I get the idea that some 
  spirit
  is doing all the work from inside ppl.  
  However scripture teaches that God only gives the Holy Spirit to those who 
  obey Jesus (the "Word")  First ppl must receive the Word and obey which 
  begins with repentance because those who receive His testimony certify that 
  God is true.  Look at the example we have in the first 
  Church:
   
  Acts 6:7 "The Word of God increased"
  Acts 12:24 "The Word of God grew and 
  multiplied"
  Acts 19:20 "Mightily grew the Word of God and 
  prevailed"
   
  Why not pray for the Father to reveal God the Word 
  to you?  This is who He was before the "incarnation"
  and this is who He is in the book of Acts.  
  God has promised that His Word will not return void Isaiah 55:11.
  Without the truth of His Word - all spiritual 
  activity is suspect.   judyt
   
   
   
    -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:39:37 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] John 
  16:13,14
  

  John, do you see a 
  big difference in the terms "Born again" and "New creature in 
  Christ"?   My own thinking is that it would be hard to be a NEW 
  creature without being born again.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  


 
My argument was quite biblical.  When you want to honestly discuss 
the issue, let me know.   
This post is not that effort.   
 
JD
 
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:41:47 
-0400Subject: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is not that we do not 
or cannot understand.  Rather, it is that we do understand but 
reject the message.   
 
jt: This is interesting JD - what's wrong with the 
message? It's Bible.  You must be Born Again.
Raised from spiritual death to spiritual life IOW by 
hearing His Voice and not hardening your heart.
No man comes to Christ except the Father 
draw him  --  
 
jt: Right!  God draws men by way of the 
"foolishness of preaching"  They hear God's Word and the 
Spirit
works in their hard old heart after telling the 
spirit clouding their mind to "shut up"
God being involved in the life of all who are dealing with the 
Christ issue.  
 
jt: So what is the Christ issue?  Aside from His 
Word that is?
Philip 2:13  ".. for it is God at work in you ..." is a 
statement of fact for us all  --   saved and 
unsaved.   
 
jt: Nonsense. The unsaved have the devil working in them 
(see Ephesians 2:1)
If we we are "lost," we are so without excuse!  
 
jt: Yes because it is God's will that all come to the 
knowledge of truth and He will make a way for them to hear.
God in Christ has broken down all the barriers ( read: reconciled 
all things unto Himself) 
 
jt: The above is objective truth.
 
and has a presence within each of us (different from a filling of the 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

How is this IMPOSSIBLE since Jesus victory over the presence, power, and 
practice of sin on our behalf?
Becoming part of this victory means agreeing with God regarding our 
hopeless and helpless condition so that
we die to all that and are born again receiving a new heart and a different 
spirit (Jer 31) because 
 
IF YOU LIVE AFTER THE FLESH YOU SHALL DIE (Romans 8:13,14)  It's your 
choice.
 
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:37:58 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  sin has nothing 
  to do with God--there is nothing God must defeat, over which to exercise 
  power to control
   
  sin is attempting 
  to manipulate God--God has yet to be manipulated
   
  God's power is 
  sacred, employed purely to elevate in his own style those who commit 
  to the foregoing, rather than to make the world/ly 
  moral
   
  while one 
  loves God, he is learning, simply, to have nothing to do with sin; however, as 
  we see, for mankind this is impossible
   
   
  On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:02:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


As Son of God,  He is the fullness of the very nature of God,  the visible 
presentation of the invisible God.
   

Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

They had to receive the Word of God before being baptized - see the example 
of Philip and the
Ethiopian eunuch.  But then some were baptized without a heart change 
- see Simon the magician
who even after being baptized wanted to pay money to receive the gift of 
the Holy Spirit.  Today if
someone rebuked a new believer as Peter did there they would be run out of 
church; today they
would just love them and put them in the choir.   judyt
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:37:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  Why would you write this:   I think John's point is that in 
  the Bible, people did not invite the Lord into their lives through saying 
  "the sinner's prayer."  Rather, they were led into the waters of 
  baptism rather than into saying a prayer. ?
   
  JD
   
    -Original Message-From: David Miller 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 
  Jul 2005 08:17:47 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14
  

  JD wrote:
>> Why do we not find people in the NT scriptures
>> "inviting the Lord into their lives?"

Izzy wrote:
> We see it all the time.  Did they leave that part out
> of your translation also?

I think John's point is that in the Bible, people did not invite the Lord 
into their lives through saying "the sinner's prayer."  Rather, they were 
led into the waters of baptism rather than into saying a prayer.  Do you 
recognize this Izzy?

The sinner's prayer is not a Biblical way of leading people to faith in 
Christ and the experience of being born again.  If anyone accepts this 
method as valid, it is not because they learned it directly from the Bible. 
Do you agree?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

Judyt: My point is that he was not fully God in the flesh and neither was 
he fully man
because he is constantly referred to as a "holy child" He was holy from 
birth
Mankind is not and this is why we so desperately need him and why he 
died for us
He is what He is and we need to be open to receive that revelation 
from
the Lord rather than die for some creed that misrepresents Him for fear of 
heresy.
The important thing is that we be conformed to His image before he returns 
for us.
 
 
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:34:46 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Absolutely?  Your point?  Jd  -Original 
  Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 
  -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
  

  Judy wrote:
>> He was on earth as the Son of God. ...
>> God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent
>> etc.  When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none
>> of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater
>> than I".

JD wrote:
> Don't be fooled.  The scriptures plainly teach that
> Jesus Christ was God and man.

Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than being God? 
Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man makes 
him man?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

Judyt: Much as I hate to disagree with you and Terry I've got to on this 
one because it promotes the "incarnational" thing.
Colossians 1:22 is the reality of the "risen Christ" John.  It is not 
how he walked amongst Israel and reading scripture in
balance and context would demonstrate this.  Why would the "fullness 
of the Godhead bodily" say "My Father is greater
than I?"  Also IMO you carry this "representative" thing too far on 
the other end.  We had no choice but to be born into
the first Adam.  We do have a choice as to whether or not we embrace 
the second and if we do not receive the Word of
God embrace reality by agreeing with His assessment and obey Him 
- we will continue on in our wretchedness and His
Kingdom will be alien to and unavailable to us because God's wrath 
continues to abide on us (John 3:36)  We don't talk
about what we have been saved from.  Why not?
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:27:39 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


In my posted comment below, I say "God and man."    He 
is the Son of God and, thus, God Himself  (John 5:18).  He is the 
Son of Man, thus, man(kind) himself.   As Son of God,  He is 
the fullness of the very nature of 
God,  the visible presentation of the invisible God.   
As Son of Man, He is the prefect(ed) representative of man !!   As a result,   
in Him,  mankind, full of faith, escapes judgment  (John 5:24 and Col 1:22, where the word translated "blameless" means "unaccused" or he who "cannot be called into 
account"  -  Thayer).  PTL !!
 
JD===You 
  have said well.Terry
   

Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter'

[Judith H Taylor]

Dave, Jesus is the authority and he did not set up a hierarchal flesh 
kingdom to stand in for Him
His kingdom is organic rather than organizational.  Leadership leads 
by example rather than as CEO
The least is as important as the greatest and all are to submit one to 
another in the fear of God.
This is the example we find in the NT.  You will note that John 
recognized the false by the way they
behaved and warned the Church not to receive them.   judyt
 
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:59:59 -0700 Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:  As I see it, the big problem was 
  not the heresy as much as it was the lack of authority.Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  

From my perspective the Mormon boys are being shown 
by those of you who adhere to Orthodoxy to a Tee
that Joseph Smith was right - His big problem was 
with the heresy of all the sects.  It's not difficult to see as it's 

even worse today than it was then - he 
was right on that point - 
  -- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

judyt:  Not entirely true JD.  Yes he won the victory for us but 
it does take effort to walk in that victory
This is what it means to "work out your own salvation with fear and 
trembling" and "continuing in hope"
or not letting go.  We must overcome the world, flesh, and devil 
because of our faith in His victory.
This takes effort. Studying to show oneself approved and rightly dividing 
the Word of Truth takes effort.
He can not present us holy and blameles without our cooperation.  It 
does not work by magic.  jt
 
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  The reason we are not comdemned has nothing, ultimately, to do with our 
  effort.  Rather, in Christ we escape judgment altogether  (John 
  3:18;  5:24) .   Because of the fact of 
  reconciliation,  we are presented as ones who cannot  (read:  
  CANNOT)  be called into account - cf. Col 1:22 and the word 
  "blameless").  
   
  JD -Original Message-From: David Miller 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 23 
  Jul 2005 06:57:30 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
  

  Judy wrote:
> Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human
> nature as per Galatians 5:19

Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been manifested 
in Jesus if he had followed his flesh.  The behavior listed there does not 
describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh.  The point 
is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here.  Jesus had victory 
over them.  If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had 
victory over these temptations.

Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of Christ, we 
have all these things abiding in our flesh.  Why aren't they alive?  Why 
aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder, 
drunkenness, and partying on weekends?  The reason is because we reckon our 
flesh dead by the power of the Spirit's operation in our life.  The 
existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and prevent us 
from being holy.  Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy.  Rather, the 
existence of this within his body illustrated his great power over sin.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how 
you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend 
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.

   

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

Amen, it is our choice to walk after the Spirit every day that gives us
power to overcome in these areas because we sure could if we wanted to.  
Some ppl are overcome even after coming to Christ and these need
deliverance
and counsel many times.  Last night I was at a Church dinner and some of
the
ladies who teach Jr. High were speaking of an epidemic of girls cutting
themselves
These are girls in Christian families and they spoke of it as a method of
control.
in their lives of seeming chaos.  How terribly tragic.  "My people perish
for
lack of knowledge"   judyt



On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:23:14 -0500 Terry Clifton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Miller wrote:
> 
> >Note that even after being born again and receiving the Spirit of 
> Christ, we 
> >have all these things abiding in our flesh.  Why aren't they alive? 
>  Why 
> >aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 
> lasciviousness, 
> >idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, 
> murder, 
> >drunkenness, and partying on weekends?  
> >
>

> Mostly because we now have the mind of Christ.
> Terry
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Humanity of Jesus

[Judith H Taylor]

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Judy wrote:
> Yes he had a flesh and blood body with the same limitations as the ones
we have only he was not
> "just like us" David. The difference is one of heart/holiness and God
gave the Spirit  without measure to Him (John 3:34)
> We have nothing like that going on... and the Spirit quickens mortal
bodies.

I think we face here some differences in what our words mean.
Let me say first that all the works of the flesh are not just limited to
the flesh when a man yields to them.  Obeying the flesh defiles the soul
and 
defiles the spirit.  Therefore, things like envy, murder, etc. can be
works not just of the flesh, but of our soul and heart when we have given

ourselves over to following the flesh.  This is how I reconcile verses
like Gal. 5:19 and James 1:14 which attribute these things to the flesh,
with 
verses like Mat. 15:19 and 2 Cor. 7:1 which show evil to be something
deeper within man.

judyt:  Yes I agree and this is why all three areas must be cleansed of
filthiness, sanctification extends to the soul and spirit
as well as the physical body.

It seems to me that in your terminology, you use the word flesh not to
refer to the physical body and behavior that might emanate from it, but
as a 
metaphor to refer to all evil behavior regardless of its source. 
Therefore, when I say that Jesus had a flesh like ours, you think that I
am saying that the sinfulness that characterizes men was a characteristic
of Jesus. 

judyt:  I see flesh as mankind as a unit or natural man.  The unit that
Gary and JD talk about. 

is not what I am saying.  If you have tasted holiness and the deliverance
from the power of sin within us, then you should have a good sense of the

victory over the flesh that Jesus experienced.  I believe that Jesus
lived this victory all his life (unlike us) because he was unique, he was
the Son 
of God, his spirit was strong from the beginning over the flesh, his mind
was upon God from the very beginning, he was empowered with the Spirit
without measure.  

judyt: I understand what you are saying David and yes I have experienced
a measure of both. The reason I don't believe Jesus to be exactly the
same as us goes back to the garden. It is my belief that when Adam chose
to eat from the other tree (and these trees represent two kinds of
wisdom) that another kingdom entered him bringing forth a different kind
of fruit.  I believe all sin to be rooted in fear.  Fear that our needs
will not be taken care of; control and all sorts of other phobias are
rooted in fear; mankind as a whole is full of fear and it was envy rooted
in fear that crucified Jesus.  However, I see none of this residing in
Him and at the end of his ministry right before he was arrested he said
"the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me" which is amazing
since he has all kinds of strongholds in the rest of us. I see salvation
as a walk of grace with progressive deliverance even though at the
beginning we can say it is so by faith.  As to Jesus experiencing
temptation and every human affliction so that he understands our
infirmities - I understand this as a combination of his physical human
limitations along with the experience of the cross where the curse for
every sin imaginable rested upon him alone for a period of time or until
"It was finished!"  Does this make any sense to you?  I would be
interested in your thoughts.

>From my perspective, all of this gave him power over whatever desires of
his flesh that would be contrary to God.  Therefore, he 
became perfect through suffering, just like us.  He experienced intense
temptation, the greatest when he went to the cross and sweat drops of
blood as his flesh cried out against the course he had taken but his
spirit and soul kept the course, contrary to the desires of his flesh.
Something else about terminology.  I suspect that what you might call
flesh, I would call soul.  So when you hear me use the word flesh, your
mind is thinking about his soul, and you cannot imagine Jesus with a
wicked soul.  

judyt: No, when you say flesh I think of mankind or the whole man with a
darkened spirit, a soul trained in unrighteousness and ungodliness,
and a body wearing the curse of ungodly choices which is the condition of
everyone outside of Christ and some who are in Him but have not yet
learned how to walk and overcome by faith.
I 
I certainly agree that Jesus did not have a wicked soul.  Jesus was
righteous and pure in every way.  Much of my perspective from my terms
comes from recognizing that when Paul said "flesh" he meant flesh, as in
physical body. History helps me accept this because I understand the
Greek mindset of those Paul wrote his letters to, the Platonic, mindset
which drew a sharp dichotomy between the material and the spiritual, with
the material world being that which is subject to corruption and change
and evil, but the spiritual world that which is perfect and pure and the
archetype for the material world.  

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

judyt:  Technically yes, but then we are playing word games. My question
is always
what does scripture communicate. I believe He was always a member of the
Godhead
He is the same yesterday, today, and forever; He is God the Word and when
He
took  upon himself mankind's "likeness" He was still God the Word emptied
of the
glory He had in heaven and observed in the form of man.


On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:11:14 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Judy wrote:
> >> He was on earth as the Son of God. ...
> >> God is omnipotent and omnipresent, transcendent
> >> etc.  When he came in a flesh body Jesus was none
> >> of these, in fact He plainly said "The Father is greater
> >> than I".
> 
> JD wrote:
> > Don't be fooled.  The scriptures plainly teach that
> > Jesus Christ was God and man.
> 
> Do either of you think that being a Son of God is different than 
> being God? 
> Would not being a Son of God make him God just as being a Son of Man 
> makes 
> him man?
> 
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller. 
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy wrote:
> They had to receive the Word of God before being baptized - see the
example of Philip and the Ethiopian
> eunuch.

This is true, but the Ethiopian you mention did not say the sinner's
prayer. He asked to be baptized.  This passage tells me several things:  
1)  Philip did not tell him to bow his head and ask Jesus to come into
his heart; otherwise, he would not have said, "if thou believest with 
all thine heart." 

jt: If you look at the passage of scripture the Ethiopian was reading and
not understanding Isaiah 53:7,8 it is all about the sacrifice
for our transgression.  The man had been to Jerusalem to worship so
apparently he had enough background to put it all together
I don't believe he was under the assumption that he was being saved by
baptism; I would say that he received the Word, the
Holy Spirit gave him understanding and that this was a baptism of
repentance.

2) the point of his public confession of Christ was water baptism rather
than an altar call where he says the sinner's prayer.  Reading earlier in

the chapter, Acts 8:12 says that when they believed Philip, they were
baptized.  In modern times, it does not often work that way in Protestant

churches.  What happens is that when the believe, they are led in a
prayer. "Close your eyes and repeat after me..."  Baptism is usually not
even 
mentioned, so that new converts often go years attending church without
being baptized.  In my opinion, this is an over-reaction to Roman 
Catholicism's emphasis on the saving aspect of baptism through the proper
authority in order to be saved.

jt: Maybe so.  Last night we were discussing a church our family used to
attend in VaBch which would preach the Word, call sinners to repentance
by beliving on Jesus and baptise them after the service (right away)
believing for the baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit also
and these people would come up out of the water speaking in tongues. 
Last night I met a girl who graduated from a High School that was
situated at the back of this church.  She got curious and went with some
of her friends and this was her experience back when she was 19yrs old.
She is now md with a 14yr old and a 4yr old and the conversion stuck -
she and her husband are pressing on and raising godly sons.

The point is not that the sinner's prayer is wrong or bad.  The point is
that leading someone to salvation through saying the sinner's prayer is
not 
a Biblical tradition.  You and Izzy claim to only believe what you read
in the Scriptures.  If you have ever led someone to salvation by having
them 
say a prayer, you did not get this tradition from the Scriptures.  

jt: How does one repent and commit publicly aside from prayer? Especially
when there is no baptismal or water handy. I think this is straining at
gnats because God has honored it, especially at Billy Graham and other
evangelistic rallies.

The closest passage I know of would be the tax collector of Luke
18:13-14, but nobody there led this man in a prayer.  It came from his
heart.  The Biblical tradition of how to lead someone into faith in
Christ is to bring them to the waters of baptism if they believe with all
their heart.  I'm 
talking about the Biblical model for how a believer would lead another
believer into becoming a disciple of Christ.  Do you agree?

jt: That may be the best way David but there is so much error associated
with baptism because of the false teachings of the RCC which is probably
why (as you have pointed out) some wait and disciple ppl a little longer.

Judy wrote:
But then some were baptized without a heart change - see Simon the
magician who even after being baptized wanted to pay money to receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit.  Today if someone rebuked a new believer as
Peter did there they would be run out of church; today they would just
love them and put them in the choir.

So very true and so very sad.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy wrote:
> Problem is that the scriptures he used were not pertaining to the
weakness of Jesus flesh;
> the ONLY scriptures on this subject are the ones using the word
"likeness" - the others
> speak to different areas or our pilgrimage - which is different from
His even though he did
> leave us an example to follow and power from on high to enable us.

Judy, the Scriptures I use most definitely DO pertain to the weakness of
Jesus flesh. 
As you point out, the strongest one mentions SINFUL flesh (Rom. 8:3).  

jt: Romans 8:3 speaks (post resurrection) to us and our sinful flesh -
Vs.2 contrasts two laws
The law of sin and death
The law of the spirit of life in Christ
Do you believe that when he inhabited a physical body Christ walked under
the law of sin and death?

You are hung up on the word "likeness," apparently interpreting it to
mean "counterfeit" or something like that.  
Well, Jesus did not have a counterfeit flesh, a flesh that looked like
human flesh but really was not.

jt: I agree he had a genuine flesh body, but don't accept that he had a
fallen flesh nature.

The other passages I have mentioned focus very much on how Christ humbled
himself by becoming man.  

jt: Sure - for someone who created everything that is to become part of
His creation and put on a body
suit must be humbling and then to serve them rather than to be served is
even more humbling.

It speaks of his suffering, or his experiencing death, etc., all things
that have to do with flesh that is corruptible. 
Death is the strongest evidence that his flesh was the same.  The
Scriptures teach us that the sting of death 
is sin.  Lord willing, I will share more later.

jt: In His case - our sin, not His.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Judy wrote:
> Yes, I do believe we all come into this world with
> an "inheritance" in and a natural "propensity" toward
> sin ... ATST I don't believe that all babies automatically
> go to hell because God is merciful and He is a God
> of covenant which is what Paul takes into consideration
> when he speaks of believer md to unbeliever and so
> long as they remain together their children are "holy"
> (because of the godly influence in that home).
> I don't think we completely understand these issues
> of sin and righteousness - like we should.

You say that we don't completely undertsand these issues.  I think what
you 
are doing is acknowledging an inconsistency in your theological
perspective. 
You don't understand these issues because your logical perspective is 
inconsistent with the voice of your conscience.  You are having trouble 
reconciling the idea of children being born "in sin" and yet something in

your conscience which does not accept the idea that they are condemned to

hell.  If you were logically consistent with your viewpoint that if Jesus

were born in the same flesh as us he would be unholy, then you would have
to 
conclude that the children also are unholy and deserve hell and
damnation. 
This is what has led many church scholars to the importance of infant 
baptism.

jt: Conscience has nothing to do with it and neither does logic so far as
I'm
concerned.  I am still learning David and from what I can see scripture
teaches
this.  I don't put any credence in what the RCC do as they have embraced
so
much error that this is dangerous.  In the early church Paul told
believers that
their children were sanctified because of their faith and this has to do
with
Covenant.  God is a Covenant God whether we like it or not.  We don't
understand as we should becaue we put a lot more value on his power/works
than do do upon understanding His ways.

If children can be born holy, or in other words, born separated unto God
and 
not deserving of the damnation of hell, why not Jesus?  

jt: Jesus was born holy and he is the exception to the rule; the rest of
us are born
in sin because we are of the first Adam - and part of a fallen people. 

I think the logically consistent position that would lead us to a better
understanding 
is that a person's flesh does not, in itself, condemn a person to the
damnation of hell. 

jt: A person's physical body alone does not condemn them to hell; it is
the sin nature
that indwells the person's physical body that is condemned and deserves
God's wrath. 

It is when a person responds to his flesh and commits sin that he becomes
guilty. 

jt: In the light of God's holiness a sinner is guilty and unclean whether
or not they have
committed a specific sin.  Look at Job - someone who God called a
"righteous" man.
He instinctively knew that there was no way for the unclean to make
itself clean and
he knew he needed a "dayspring/redeemer"

It seems to me that Izzy and I are in agreement on this point.  What do
you think?  

jt: I think it is abhorrent to think of cute little newborns with a
satanic stronghold
within them but it doesn't take long for the disease to declare itself.

(Obviously, my next proposition, if this is accepted, is to talk about
Jesus and the
relationship between his flesh 
and holiness.)

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

[Judith H Taylor]

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judy wrote:
> Was Jesus born with a regular fleshly human
> nature as per Galatians 5:19

Gal. 5:19ff describes the kind of behavior that would have been
manifested 
in Jesus if he had followed his flesh.  The behavior listed there does
not 
describe Jesus because he followed the Spirit and not the flesh.  The
point 
is that Jesus CONQUERED all the temptations listed here.  Jesus had
victory 
over them.  If his flesh was not like our flesh, he would not have had 
victory over these temptations.  Note that even after being born again
and receiving 
the Spirit of Christ, we have all these things abiding in our flesh.  Why
aren't they alive? 

jt: They are for too many of us and just like with the children of Israel
when they
entered Canaan.  God does not drive all of the enemies out immediately
because
of our ignorance, we wouldn't be strong enough to stand since we have
been
trained in unrighteousness.

Why aren't we walking in adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, 
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strife, seditions, heresies, envy, murder, 
drunkenness, and partying on weekends?  

jt: All of these sadly have a large part in the professing church.  Even
my pastor who
is a godly man reminded me last night that ppl are prone to sin.

The reason is because we reckon our flesh dead by the power of the
Spirit's operation 
in our life.  

jt: Yes, this is what we do when we walk after the Spirit consistently.
Consistency
is the problem for us.  I don't see that it was a problem for Him though.

The existence of all this within our flesh does not condemn us and
prevent us from 
being holy.  Neither did it make Jesus Christ unholy.  

jt: It wasn't in Him; he was the Son of God - remember. The second Adam.
I don't
believe he was born a member of the first Adamic race and became the
second Adam
at the resurrection - is this what you are saying?

Rather, the existence of this within his body illustrated his great power
over sin.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] ----- the chastening of the Lord -------

[Judith H Taylor]

No.  Sin causes every one of these .. and sin is passed down 
generationally; they are curses, not blessings.  jt
 
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:54:54 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  God is: (1) omnipotent (2) omniscient THIS, IMO, 
  is theological speculation of the first order.  Start small: (1) 
  genetic/contingent - does God cause tooth decay, male pattern baldness, 
  deficincies in hearing/seeing, high blood pressure, overweight, etc. 
  etc. 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: September 21, 2005 08:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] - the 
chastening of the Lord ---
I take it, John, that you are saying that God allowed this 
storm but did not cause it.  He knew it would happen but did not design 
it to punish sinners.  We discussed that in home church last night and 
feelings were mixed.  God is omniscient, so there is no 
argument that He knew what would happen.  God is omnipotent, so He 
could have stopped it or altered the course.  Why did He not do 
that?  Anyone's guess.  I suspect that there was not enough prayer 
by righteous people for a starter.  Could be that He has set the forces 
of nature long ago and programmed them to do certain things at certain 
seasons, and sees better reasons for letting nature run it's course than for 
interfering.  I heard one preacher say that if God directed the storm 
to punish gangs and casinos and rampant sin then you also have to blame God 
for the churches in that area that were leveled.  His feeling, 
evidently was that God would never deliberately destroy a church.  
Someone in our group suggested that maybe those churches were luke warm and 
needed destroying, but that was just a possibility.I have no firm 
opinion either way, but Izzy gave a verse the other day in something she 
sent that sticks in my mind.  Amos 3:6 where the prophet asks, "If 
there is calamity in a city, is it not God's 
doing?"Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
    
  I was reading in Hebrews 12 and it occurred to me that "chastening" as in "the chastening of the Lord" is not about God 
  providing events to do the work of slapping his children around and 
  getting them to walk a tight line.   Rather, "chastening" is more rooted in Romans 8:28 
  and the revelation that God works all things for the 
  good.    Stuff happens.   God uses it to teach 
  lessons.   
   
  The storms in the Gulf Coast are not about an angry God teaching His 
  people a lesson.  Rather,  it is about a loving Father who sits 
  down with His children and says,  "Now,  what lessons can we 
  learn from this disgusting disaster?"    
   
  Look to Hebrews 12:3.   This passage on "chantening" begins with chastening of Christ at the hands of 
  sinners.   God did not author this event  --  He used 
  it --- for the good of His eternal Son and  for us 
  all.   When bad things happens,   it is our call 
  --  per passages such as Heb 
  12  -   to look for the benefit as we partner with a loving 
  heavenly Father.   
   
  "Chastening"  is not the bad 
  that comes our way but what we make of that bad circumstance.   
  When we learn this lesson,  we begin to be partakers of His holiness  (12:10).  
   
  If there is a lesson in those storms on the Gulf Coast, it is a 
  lesson for those who are in partnership with Him    
      not for the pagan minded.  
  
   
  Just a thought.   
   
  JD
   

Re: [TruthTalk] ----- the chastening of the Lord -------

[Judith H Taylor]

God doesn't slap anyone around JD ... the devil and his minnions are the 
ones who implement the curse
God's Word is already settled in heaven and we receive blessing or curses 
according to how we honor it.
Jesus was not being chastened by God; nor was he under a curse - because 
there was no sin to justify same.
Hebrews 12:3 is more of an indication of his perseverance  .. 
believers are believers with or without a storm.
An attitude of gratitude is what reveals the saint and lack of same usually 
marks the sinner.  judyt
 
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:07:54 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
    
  I was reading in Hebrews 12 and it occurred to me that "chastening" as in "the chastening of the Lord" is not about God providing events to do 
  the work of slapping his children around and getting them to walk a tight 
  line.   Rather, "chastening" is 
  more rooted in Romans 8:28 and the revelation that God works all things for 
  the good.    Stuff happens.   God uses it to teach 
  lessons.   
   
  The storms in the Gulf Coast are not about an angry God teaching His 
  people a lesson.  Rather,  it is about a loving Father who sits down 
  with His children and says,  "Now,  what lessons can we learn from 
  this disgusting disaster?"    
   
  Look to Hebrews 12:3.   This passage on "chantening" begins with chastening of Christ at the hands of sinners.   God did 
  not author this event  --  He used it --- for the good of 
  His eternal Son and  for us all.   When bad things 
  happens,   it is our call --  per passages such as Heb 12  -   to look for the 
  benefit as we partner with a loving heavenly Father.   
   
  "Chastening"  is not the bad 
  that comes our way but what we make of that bad circumstance.   When 
  we learn this lesson,  we begin to be partakers of His holiness  (12:10).  
   
  If there is a lesson in those storms on the Gulf Coast, it is a lesson 
  for those who are in partnership with Him    
      not for the pagan minded.  
   
  Just a thought.   
   
  JD
   

Re: [TruthTalk] ----- the chastening of the Lord -------

[Judith H Taylor]

Hebrews 12:3 speaks of striving against sin (on our part) and for Jesus it 
was a striving against sinners who cost him his
natural life eventually.  He was not being chastised.  What would 
he have been chastised for since he only said and did what He
first heard the Father saying and doing?  judyt
 
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:09:40 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  Wrong dictionary,  Linda.   This "chantening" comes from a Greek word that speaks 
  to "the opportunity to learn"   or "to receive training  -  correction in that 
  sense;   as one would train an athlete."   
   
  In Hebrews 12:3, Jesus is receiving 
  this same correction.   It was hardly "punishment" in His 
  case.  But thanks for your response.   
   
  JD   
   
   
   
    -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:26:59 
  -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] - the chastening of the Lord ---
  

  
  

  
  


  
chas·ten    [Image removed] 
( P )  Pronunciation 
Key  (ch 
[Image removed] [Image removed] s [Image removed] n)tr.v. chas·tened, chas·ten·ing, chas·tens 

  To correct 
  by punishment or reproof; take to task. 
  To 
  restrain; subdue: chasten a proud 
  spirit. 
  To rid of 
  excess; refine or purify: chasten a careless writing style. 
  
 



[Alteration of obsolete 
chaste, from Middle English chasten, chastien, from Old French chastiier, from Latin castig [Image removed] 
re. See castigate.] 



chas [Image removed] ten·er n.
  [Download Now or Buy 
  the Book] 
  


  
Source: The 
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth 
EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin 
Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights 
reserved.
  
  chasten
  v 1: censure severely; "She chastised him for his 
  insensitive remarks" [syn: chastise, castigate, objurgate, correct] 2: restrain or temper [syn: moderate, temper] 3: correct by punishment or discipline 
  [syn: tame, subdue]
   
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  TruthTalk-owner@mail.innglory.org [mailto:TruthTalk-owner@mail.innglory.org] On 
  Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:08 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] - the 
  chastening of the Lord 
  ---
   
  
  
  
   
   
  
  I was reading in Hebrews 12 and it occurred to me that "chastening" as in "the chastening of the 
  Lord" is not about God providing events to 
  do the work of slapping his children 
  around and getting them to walk a tight 
  line.   Rather, "chastening" is more rooted in 
  Romans 8:28 and the revelation that God works all things for the 
  good.    Stuff happens.   God uses it to teach lessons.   
  
  
   
  
  The storms in the Gulf Coast are not about an angry God 
  teaching His people a lesson.  Rather,  it is about a loving Father who sits down with 
  His children and says,  "Now,  what lessons can we learn from this 
  disgusting disaster?"    
  
  
   
  
  Look to Hebrews 
  12:3.   This passage on "chantening" begins with chastening of Christ at the hands of sinners.   
  God did not author this event  --  He 
  used it --- for the good of His eternal Son and  for us 
  all.   When bad things happens,   it is our call --  
  per passages such as Heb 12  -   to look for the benefit 
  as we partner with a loving heavenly 
  Father.   
  
   
  
  "Chastening"  is 
  not the bad that comes our way but what we make of that bad 
  circumstance.   When we learn this lesson,  we begin to be 
  partakers of His holiness  (12:10).  
  
  
   
  
  If there is a lesson in those 
  storms on the Gulf Coast, it is a lesson for those who are 
  in partnership with Him    
      not for the pagan minded.  
  
  
   
  
  Just a thought.   
  
  
   
  
  JD
   

Re: [TruthTalk] ----- the chastening of the Lord -------

[Judith H Taylor]

The writer below likes all ppl, fat and thin because they don't judge by 
outward appearance; eating is a necessity
So what is wrong with that, so long as it is not gluttony or an idol?  
jt
 
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:53:34 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  here's some truth 
  talk for you: sugars and salts cause tooth decay which means in this 
  writer's view, below, eating is sinful, a curse, certainly not a 
  blessing..i bet, like g bush, this writer doesn't like fat 
  people..it has to do with 'chastening' them, too, where chastening equates to 
  'legal judging'..
   
  On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:15:43 -0400 Judith H Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
No.  Sin causes every one of these .. and sin is passed 
down generationally; they are curses, not blessings.  jt
 
||
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans spirits

[Judith H Taylor]

No fear of God Kevin - So as that Gen working in NO is so fond of saying
- they are stuck
on stupid!!  The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of
the HOLY One is
understanding.  No sign of any of that here.  jt


On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Well according to what you call "pagan" __ you do sound like 
> one.
> 
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > What happend to Sodom way back when?   There wasn't anyone left,
> > Kevin.   No one.   The place was consumed.THAT is the judgment 
> of
> > God upon a city.   The discipline that occurred in NO was for 
> those
> > who receive discipline   -   it was not a judgment of 
> God
> > upon the pagans.   That's why they are back in business.   That's 
> why
> > the French Quarter was one of the few parts of the city that 
> SURVIVED
> > or did you miss that part of the news story?   
> >  
> > Do your "pagan" crap on someone else,   Kevin. You sound like 
> someone
> > who doesn't have a clue as to the judgments of God.  
> >  
> > JD
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans 
> spirits
> > 
> > 
> > what was it 2 days after and the Sodomites were marching their sin
> > down burbon street.
> > was it 2 days after and they announced don't worry, we plan on 
> having
> > Mardi Gras as usual
> >  
> > JD you sound like a Pagan
> >  
> > You sound like an Israelite of old.
> > "Jerusalem accursed?"
> >  
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Rita MISSED N.O.   Doesn't sound accursed to me.  I suspect there 
> are
> > many more fine Christian people in that city than pagans.   
> >  
> > JD 
> >  
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:17:55 -0500
> > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans 
> spirits
> > 
> > 
> > depravity
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:04 PM
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans 
> spirits
> >  
> > what reason?
> >  
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:39:33 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is definitely an accursed city for good reason. izzy
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin 
> Deegan
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:21 AM
> > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans 
> spirits
> >  
> > http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=words&id=10120 
> > The Pagan Loss Of New Orleans
> > 
> > 
> > ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > US Soldiers vs New Orleans haunting spirits: 
> > http://cbs5.com/video/[EMAIL PROTECTED]   
> > __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! for Good
> > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans spirits

[Judith H Taylor]

Understanding JD's thought process?  Now that is a challenge 
Terry.  Sounds to me like if a city is not completely
destroyed like Sodom then it is not judgement according to JD - 
Strange!!  Like God has to perform by rote or something.
What about Nineveh?  God warned them and they repented for a short 
time and stayed the inevitable, but when they went 
back to their old ways God/s judgement took care of Nineveh and it is 
no more.
 
What happened in New Orleans is certainly not a blessing.  
We are in LA at present and have been hearing a lot. Apparently
there are 4500 known sex offenders from around NO unaccounted for and 
there have been rapes in shelters. The Sherrif 
here in Monroe LA has been trying to get a list of names so he can 
investigate but the Red Cross are thwarting him and 
saying it is against their regulations.  What is the matter with ppl - 
where has good sense gone?
 
A lot missed our Reunion because of Rita, they were busy fleeing Houston 
with their boats, campers, etc. but Houston is
nothing like New Orleans which city has had a reputation for 
gross sin and corruption for years.  Locally they say that most
of the ppl here in shelters don't want to go back there so maybe the French 
Quarter can just be an isolated island there or
they can rename it The French Quarter.   judyt
 
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:38:27 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


What happend to Sodom way back when?   There wasn't 
anyone left, Kevin.   No one.   The place was 
consumed.    THAT is the judgment of God upon a 
city.   The discipline that occurred in NO was for those who 
receive discipline   -   it was not a 
judgment of God upon the pagans.   
JD
==In 
  light of this opinion, could you tell us the answer to the question posed in 
  Amos 3:6?  I would really like to understand your thinking.  
  Terry
  


 
 
  
   

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

I'm around but we are travelling and I don't always get to check email 
regularly.  Right now we are in Louisiana
headed back to VA.  I can't believe you would call this argument "well 
stated" JD. This is the exact argument used
by a homosexual from the UK on another Christian list that used to be 
active... they read their peculiar perversion
into the text.  There is no way David and Jonathan were homosexual. 
The Covenant love described here was not
a perversion of true God ordained physical love.  It was Covenant love 
without the sensuality and anyone proclaiming
otherwise obviously does not know God.   judyt
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:32:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  alrighty then.-Original 
  Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:05:17 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for 
  homosecuality
  

  I see no argument 
  for homosexuality.  Homosexuals are an abomination to God, yet David was 
  a man after God's heart.  David was therefore not a homosexual.  
  Whoever wrote the trash you offered was a liar, or did not understand the 
  customs of the times, or both.This one should jerk Judy's chain if she 
  is still around. 
  :)Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

 
In case you were curious,  here is a rather well stated 
argument for homosexuality.  
Enjoy.  
 
JD 
 
 
  The Bible has often been used as a weapon to condemn 
homosexuality as sinful or immoral. It is often overlooked and even 
outrightly denied that some of the heroes in the Bible were themselves 
homosexual. The story of Jonathan and David is one of the more obvious 
cases.For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself 
unfold most of the story.After David's heroic victory over 
the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1 Samual, Chapter 17, David meets 
Jonathan for the first time. 1 And it came to pass, when he 
had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was 
knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 
And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his 
father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he 
loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe 
that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his 
sword, a nd to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 
Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much 
that they made a covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the 
King, strips before David, who is much lower in rank and 
status.In the next passages, David's popularity and military 
achievements are advanced, and King Saul starts getting jealous of all 
the attention being paid to David. In order to trap him, Saul makes 
David his son-in-law by giving him his daughter, Michal, to wed. 
Some people may stop right here and say that if David 
married Michal, it's proof that he didn't have a homosexual relationship 
with Jonathan. There are several flaws to this argument. First, their 
marriage was probably only political. Saul offers his daughter's hand in 
marriage only as part of a greater plot to get at David. And while it 
was said that Michal loved David, the Bible never says that he loved her 
back. Also, we know from other ancient cult ures such as the Greeks and 
even the Philistines, that heterosexual marriages weren't necessarily 
exclusive. It's very possible that David could have been bisexual. 
In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill David, and David 
eventually flees in 1 Samuel 20.1 And David fled from 
Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? 
what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he 
seeketh my life? 2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: 
behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he 
will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is 
not so. 3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly 
knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not 
Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, 
and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. 4 Then 
said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do 
it for thee. 1 Samuel 20: 3-4David and Jonathan continue 
talking about what to do about Jonathan's father. Then they part ways so 
Jonathan can go somewhere safe. Again they make a covenant with each 
other, and swear their love for each other. Jonathan loved David "as he 
loved his own soul". 16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the 
house of Dav

Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans spirits

[Judith H Taylor]

Rita did almost as much damage to New Orleans as it did to Port Arthur TX 
because the just barely
dried out city reflooded and their temporary levees gave way; any attempt 
to rebuild that mess will be
a huge waste of money pit - much better to leave it a small port city just 
as Tyre and Sidon are now small
fishing villages - The sodomites could then search for a different 
venue.  jt 
 
From: Kevin Deegan To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:23:53 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers 
rebuke haunting New Orleans spirits



  
  
  
  What was it 2 days after and the Sodomites were marching their sin down burbon street.
  was it 2 days after and they announced don't worry, we plan on having 
  Mardi Gras as usual
   
  JD you sound like a Pagan
   
  You sound like an Israelite of old.
  "Jerusalem accursed?"
   
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


Rita MISSED N.O.   
Doesn't sound accursed to me.  I suspect there are many more fine 
Christian people in that city than pagans.   
 
JD  -Original Message-From: 
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:17:55 
-0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans 
spirits






depravity
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:04 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers 
rebuke haunting New 
Orleans spirits
 

what 
reason?

 

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:39:33 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  It is definitely 
  an accursed city for good reason. izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Monday, September 26, 2005 
  10:21 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers 
  rebuke haunting New 
  Orleans 
spirits
   
  
  http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=words&id=10120 The Pagan Loss Of New 
  Orleans
  
  ShieldsFamily 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  
US Soldiers vs New 
Orleans haunting 
spirits:  http://cbs5.com/video/[EMAIL PROTECTED]. 
  
  __Do 
  You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
  around http://mail.yahoo.com 
  
   
  
  
  Yahoo! for GoodClick here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homoseXuality

[Judith H Taylor]

It is surely a sick, sick, sick society that would read perversion into
anything Jesus said or did.
Trying to project their own filth upon One who is the same yesterday,
today, and forever; One who
has always been pure and holy.  Yes John was the disciple Jesus loved but
scriptural love is hardly
defiled and perverted bath house sex.  It never ever means this to
someone with the mind of Christ.
The mind of the adversary will try and conform God's Word to it's own
image for those tuned to it's
voice  This is SICK indeed.  It is time to REPENT!!  Right on Terry
... my chain is JERKED.  
Judyt


On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Kevin Deegan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This argument is from the same SICKO who said on the basis of the
> following verse he has decided Jesus was GAY. SICK! JN 13:23 Now 
> there
> was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I see no argument for homosexuality.  Homosexuals are an 
> abomination
> > to  God, yet David was a man after God's heart.  David was 
> therefore
> not a  homosexual.  Whoever wrote the trash you offered was a liar, 
> or
> did not  understand the customs of the times, or both.
> > _This one should jerk Judy's chain if she is still around. :)_
> > Terry
> > 
> 
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > >  
> > > *In case you were curious,  here is a rather well stated 
> argument
> > for 
> > > homosexuality.* 
> > > *Enjoy.  *
> > > ** 
> > > *JD *
> > >  
> > >  
> > >   
> > > The Bible has often been used as a weapon to condemn 
> homosexuality
> > as 
> > > sinful or
> > > immoral. It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied that
> > some 
> > > of the
> > > heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The story of
> > Jonathan 
> > > and David
> > > is one of the more obvious cases.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself unfold 
> most
> > of 
> > > the story.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > After David's heroic victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, 
> in
> > 1 
> > > Samual,
> > > Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto
> > Saul, 
> > > that the
> > > soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan
> > loved 
> > > him as his
> > > own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no
> > more 
> > > home to his
> > > father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, 
> because
> > he 
> > > loved him
> > > as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe 
> that
> > was 
> > > upon him,
> > > and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, a nd 
> to
> > his 
> > > bow, and
> > > to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much that
> > they 
> > > made a
> > > covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips
> > before 
> > > David,
> > > who is much lower in rank and status.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the next passages, David's popularity and military 
> achievements
> > are 
> > > advanced,
> > > and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention being
> > paid 
> > > to David.
> > > In order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving 
> him
> > his
> > > daughter, Michal, to wed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some people may stop right here and say that if David married
> > Michal, 
> > > it's proof
> > > that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. 
> There
> > are 
> > > several
> > > flaws to this argument. First, their marriage was probably only 
> > > political. Saul
> > > offers his daughter's hand in marriage only as part of a greater
> > plot 
> > > to get at
> > > David. And while it was said that Michal loved David, the Bible
> > never 
> > > says that
> > > he loved her back. Also, we know from other ancient cultures 
> such
> > as 
> > > the Greeks
> > > and even the Philistines, that heterosexual marriages weren't
> > necessarily
> > > exclusive. It's very possible that David could have been 
> bisexual.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill David, and David eventually
> > flees 
> > > in 1 Samuel
> > > 20.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before 
> > > Jonathan, What
> > > have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before 
> thy 
> > > father, that
> > > he seeketh my life? 2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou 
> shalt
> > not 
> > > die:
> > > behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but 
> that
> > he 
> > > will shew
> > > it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is 
> not
> > so. 
> > > 3 And
> > > David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth 
> that I
> > 
> > > have found
> > > grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Le

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

YES,
We are to pursue righteousness and sin not.  What is so complicated 
about that?
Girly men don't make it - JD
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:00:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  So you have to be sin free?   Oh, by the way  -  
  do you consider yourself to be effeminate?
   
  Jd  From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit 
  the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
  adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
  mankind
  Maybe in your translation?
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


I am sure he has been told many times.   But I was 
wondering   -   are there going to be any 
gluttons in heaven?  
 
JD  From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]


If you use the 
word Christian to describe a follower of Christ, then this is an 
oxymoron.  Perverts go to Hell.  Christians go to Heaven.  
There are no perverted Christians.   If this man is a homosexual, 
he is lost and needs to know it.  Maybe then he can become a Christian 
ex pervert.TerryP.S. I would not wait long to tell him..  God 
can punch his ticket before you know it and it will be forever too 
late.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  
  The post below is from a conversation I am having with a gay 
  Christian.   I will not be calling him names anytime 
  soon.   Patient dialogue is the only avenue open.   
  
   
    -Original Message-From: Kevin 
  Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 
  12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay 
  community for homosecuality
  

  PERVERT ALERT!

Who were the other PERVERTS?

"It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied that some of the 
heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual."

Can you believe the Audacity of some to OUT-right deny the above
statement?

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  
> In case you were curious,  here is a rather well stated argument for
> homosexuality.  
> Enjoy.  
>  
> JD 
>  
>  
>   
> The Bible has often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as
> sinful or  immoral. It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied
that some> of the  heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The
story of Jonathan> and David > is one of the more obvious cases.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself unfold most of
> the story.
> 
> 
> 
> After David's heroic victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1
> Samual, 
> Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first time. 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,
> that the 
> soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved
> him as his 
> own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more
> home to his 
> father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he
> loved him 
> as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was
> upon him, 
> and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his
> bow, and 
> to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 
> 
> 
> 
> Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much that they
> made a 
> covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips
> before David, 
> who is much lower in rank and status.
> 
> 
> 
> In the next passages, David's popularity and military achievements
> are advanced, 
> and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention being paid
> to David. 
> In order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving him
> his 
> daughter, Michal, to wed. 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people may stop right here and say that if David married Michal,
> it's proof 
> that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. There
> are several 
> flaws to this argument. First, their marriage was probably only
> political. Saul 
> offers his daughter's hand in marriage only as part of a greater plot
> to get at 
> David. And while it was said that Michal loved David, the Bible never
> says that 
> he loved her back. Also, we know from other ancient cultures such as
> the Greeks 
> and even the Philistines, that heterosexual marriages weren't
> necessarily 
> exclusive. It's very possible that David could have been bisexual. 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill David, and David eventually flees
> in 1 Samuel 
> 20.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before
> Jonathan, What 
> have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy
> father, that 
> he seeketh my life? 2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt
> not die: 
> behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he
> will shew 
> it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not
> so. 3 And 
> David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth th

[TruthTalk] San Francisco next??

[Judith H Taylor]

San Francisco may be just a little closer to that big earthquake which
they've been expecting.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3063044

Article Last Updated: 9/26/2005 02:53 AM

Leather-clad revelers hot, sweaty in S.F.
Good-natured spanking, flogging at festival benefits gay, lesbian and
AIDS groups
By Kellie Ell, CORRESPONDENT
Inside Bay Area 

SAN FRANCISCO — Despite sweltering morning heat, leather-clad minions
mixed with fully nude street revelers as an estimated 400,000 people
flocked to Folsom Street on Sunday for the 22nd annual Folsom Street Fair
in San Francisco. 
Dominants and submissives came from all over the globe, including London,
Paris, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to experience the "granddaddy of
leather" extravaganzas, according to Darryl Flick, president of Folsom
Street Events. The organization hoped to raise at least $265,000, the
same as last year, to provide services to gay, lesbian and AIDS
organizations throughout San Francisco. 

First aid personnel said the biggest problem was party-goers passing out
from heat exhaustion. But Flick said that the fair provides a chance for
people to honestly express themselves and receives the full support of
the city.  "Everybody has some degree of fetish," said Bill Worthen, vice
president
of Folsom Street Events. Worthen joined the leather community more than
10 years 
ago after attending a leather party wearing his father's leather pants.
He still
owns the pants and talks freely of interests in flogging and water
sports. 

Fixations displayed at the fair ranged all across the board. 
Sister Maple Syrup, a leather-clad nun in spiky black studded boots and
neon blue hair, said she was fully involved in the leather community and
has been for more than three years. She said she does hospice work to
raise money for charities all over the Bay Area. "I love being out in a
kinky 
environment. I'm a kinky nun," Maple Syrup said. "A great way to control 
a man is to get him to wear panties." Maple Syrup said she has the full
support 
of her three college-age daughters who also attended the fair, the
youngest of 
which Maple Syrup said has an interest in spanking. 

The fair attracted the usual enthusiasts in San Francisco's leather-clad,
S&M and gay community, as well as many families. "There's a lot more
straight 
people and strollers," said Chuck Rudd, a member of the Bears of San
Francisco, 
a local nonprofit organization. 

Elder San Francisco resident Larry Raymond said he comes to the fair
every year for "all the good hot bodies." 

Kat Ortland, a statuesque model and a recent college graduate from
Oregon, suited up in an all-black vinyl pantsuit and three-inch lace-up
boots to demonstrate Shabiri, the Japanese art of binding. "There are
amazing 
people here and some amazing customs," Ortland said. There's a raw
energy. 
Everyone is so uninhibited. 

But not everyone was dressed in head-to-toe leather or spanking naked. 
The Freedom in Christ Church of San Francisco, the first church in the
city to attend the fair, has been handing out information for several
years and was welcomed by the organizers, according to Carl Smith of the
church. Still, many people came just to size up the crowd. 

Katarina Lukezic danced the afternoon away in a fuzzy, neon bunny top and
matching sweat pants that showed off her pierced naval. "We should enjoy
diversity," Lukezic said. "Not suppress it."
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

Then what is his problem JD?  Unbelief?  Is he going to replicate 
A&E's folly in the garden?
Amazing how mankind can't learn ... Hath God said?  Hath God said? 
Hath God said?  Oh
He really doesn't mean that.  He loves you so much.
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:17:15 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  I am sure he has been told many times.   But I was 
  wondering   -   
  are there going to be any gluttons in heaven?  
  JD  From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  If you use the word 
  Christian to describe a follower of Christ, then this is an oxymoron.  
  Perverts go to Hell.  Christians go to Heaven.  There are no 
  perverted Christians.   If this man is a homosexual, he is lost and 
  needs to know it.  Maybe then he can become a Christian ex 
  pervert.TerryP.S. I would not wait long to tell him..  God can 
  punch his ticket before you know it and it will be forever too 
  late.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  


The post below is from a conversation I am having with a gay 
Christian.   I will not be calling him names anytime 
soon.   Patient dialogue is the only avenue open.   

 
  -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] an 
argument from the gay community for homosecuality


PERVERT ALERT!

Who were the other PERVERTS?

"It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied that some of the 
heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual."

Can you believe the Audacity of some to OUT-right deny the above
statement?

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  
> In case you were curious,  here is a rather well stated argument for
> homosexuality.  
> Enjoy.  
>  
> JD 
>  
>  
>   
> The Bible has often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as
> sinful or  immoral. It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied
that some> of the  heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The
story of Jonathan> and David > is one of the more obvious cases.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself unfold most of
> the story.
> 
> 
> 
> After David's heroic victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1
> Samual, 
> Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first time. 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,
> that the 
> soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved
> him as his 
> own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more
> home to his 
> father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he
> loved him 
> as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was
> upon him, 
> and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his
> bow, and 
> to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 
> 
> 
> 
> Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much that they
> made a 
> covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips
> before David, 
> who is much lower in rank and status.
> 
> 
> 
> In the next passages, David's popularity and military achievements
> are advanced, 
> and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention being paid
> to David. 
> In order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving him
> his 
> daughter, Michal, to wed. 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people may stop right here and say that if David married Michal,
> it's proof 
> that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. There
> are several 
> flaws to this argument. First, their marriage was probably only
> political. Saul 
> offers his daughter's hand in marriage only as part of a greater plot
> to get at 
> David. And while it was said that Michal loved David, the Bible never
> says that 
> he loved her back. Also, we know from other ancient cultures such as
> the Greeks 
> and even the Philistines, that heterosexual marriages weren't
> necessarily 
> exclusive. It's very possible that David could have been bisexual. 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill David, and David eventually flees
> in 1 Samuel 
> 20.
> 
> 
> 
> 1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before
> Jonathan, What 
> have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy
> father, that 
> he seeketh my life? 2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt
> not die: 
> behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he
> will shew 
> it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not
> so. 3 And 
> David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I
> have found 
> grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest
> he be 
> grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there
> is but a 
> step between me and death. 4 Then said Jonathan unto David,
> Whatsoever thy soul 
> desireth, I will even do it for thee. 1 Samuel 20: 3-4
> 
> 
> 
> David and Jonathan con

[TruthTalk] liberals and babies

[Judith H Taylor]

When liberals abandon knowledge of God, their discernment and wisdom
disappear.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/27/ncoo27.x
ml

Hospital bans 'cooing' over baby
By Paul Stokes
(Filed: 27/09/2005)
A hospital has banned visitors from "cooing" over newborn babies to
protect their dignity and parents' right to confidentiality.
People have been told they should resist the temptation to touch or be
too familiar with the new arrivals. They are also being warned to respect
patient confidentiality by not talking to staff or parents about babies.
Cards have been issued to visitors at Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax,
West Yorks, bearing the words "Respect My Baby" on the front. On the back
are the lines written as though from the baby: "I am small and precious
so treat me with privacy and respect. My parents ask you to treat my
personal space with consideration. I deserve to be left undisturbed and
protected against unwanted public view."
The measures were introduced as a result of a Government booklet, Essence
of Care, that explains extra protection for patients
But the hospital's interpretation has prompted criticism from mothers.
Lynsey Pearson, 26, from Halifax, who gave birth to her first child,
Hannah, four weeks ago, said: "This ludicrous idea is taking
confidentiality to the extreme. If people did not ask me about my baby I
would be offended. I am so proud of Hannah and I want to show her off. I
imagine all new mums feel that way."
Debbie Lawson, the neo-natal manager at the special care baby unit, said:
"We know people have good intentions but we need to respect the child.
"Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people
with the same rights as you or me."
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph
Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence.
For the full copyright statement see Copyright   
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

Impossible!!
No more likely than a "christian prostitute" a "christian murderer" or a 
"christian bank robber"
You need to delete the adjective and do some serious Bible Study asking God 
to reveal His Word
rather than add your own ideas to change what you don't like.  I have 
met homosexuals who claim
to be christian and am aware that they are in churches, in fact two sit in 
the church I attend. The
elders are aware, know they are there and are glad they are sitting under 
the Word but they could
never have a position of authority or join the church until they repent of 
the lifestyle.  judyt
 
 
 
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:01:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  IFF this is so THEN YOU ARE AN OXYMORON! You, Iz, 
  along with every believer sin in thought, word and deed daily.
  One can be a Christian homosexual. I suspect JD 
  has met some. I have met some.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
ShieldsFamily 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: September 28, 2005 10:45
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] an argument 
from the gay community for homosecuality


BTW, “Christian 
sinner” is also an oxymoron. iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 
8:22 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] an argument 
from the gay community for homosecuality
 
You have no 
business telling anyone else on TT to keep quiet, thank you. 
iz
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Lance 
MuirSent: Wednesday, 
September 28, 2005 7:57 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument 
from the gay community for homosecuality
 

Wrong!! Read it again or, keep 
quiet. 

  
  - Original Message - 
  
  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: 
  September 28, 2005 09:14
  
  Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for 
  homosecuality
  
   
  You say this to 
  your shame, Lance, not comprehending the Word of God, or even what it 
  means to be a true Believer.  (Anyone qualifies in your opinion.) 
  izzy
   
  I Cor 6: 
  9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will 
  not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither 
  fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals….”
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 
  4:16 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument 
  from the gay community for 
homosecuality
   
  
  It (Christian homosexual) is 
  no more of an oxymoron than 'Christian sinner',. In spite of the poor 
  exegesis and poor theology to the contrary, this is so. 
  
  

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 


To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: 
September 27, 2005 17:12

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for 
homosecuality

 
To you this is 
“well stated”??? To me it is too typical faggot tripe. And, FYI, there 
is no such thing as a “Christian homosexual”.  
 izzy
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 
11:20 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an 
argument from the gay community for 
homosecuality
 


 

In case you were 
curious,  here is a rather well stated argument for 
homosexuality.  


Enjoy.  


 

JD 


 

 

  The Bible 
has often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as sinful or 
immoral. It is often overlooked and even outrightly denied that some 
of the heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The story of 
Jonathan and David is one of the more obvious 
cases.For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible 
itself unfold most of the story.After David's heroic 
victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1 Samual, Chapter 17, 
David meets Jonathan for the first time. 1 And it came 
to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the 
soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of Dav

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

JD, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You will 
never talk a practising homosexual who likes
what he is doing out of it.  This man has a spiritual problem and can 
not free himself from bondage to this unclean spirit until
like the prodigal son - he sees the pigpen for what it is he will 
never want to be free from it.  This sin (as gross as it is) is 
apparently pleasurable for a season - but then there is always 
payday looming in the not so distant future. This man needs to
hear the truth that his choice is between God and freedom in Christ 
and the wrath of God along with the continued bondage 
that accompanies his chosen lifestyle.  judyt
 
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:12:30 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  The gay guy who caves 
  in does not enter the Kingdom of God.  Faggot tripe is just the 
  facts about that kind of blasphemous drivel.  It is an insult to God and 
  His Word.  People who don’t like the truth call that hate or 
  judgmental.  But it’s the truth, and that’s just the way it is. You don’t 
  have to agree, but you do have to allow for others’ opinions because there is 
  nothing you can do about it, basically.  I’m sure you can deal with it. 
   izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:24 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from 
  the gay community for homosecuality
   
  
  
  
   
  
  You are such a  tender 
  hearted woman.   What is the guy (gay) is trying to deal with the problem but caves in 
  ?  
  
   
  
  And why is it ok for one to be hateful and judgmental but not homosexual?  
  
  
   
  
  JD
  
   
  
   
  
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:12:10 -0500Subject: 
  RE: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality
  
  
  To you this is "well 
  stated"??? To me it is too typical faggot tripe. And, FYI, there is no such thing as a "Christian homosexual".  
   izzy
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:20 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from 
  the gay community for homosecuality
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  In case you were curious,  
  here is a rather well stated argument for homosexuality.  
  
  
  
  Enjoy.  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  JD 
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
    The Bible has 
  often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as sinful or immoral. It is 
  often overlooked and even 
  outrightly denied that some of the heroes in the Bible were themselves 
  homosexual. The story of Jonathan and David is one of the more obvious 
  cases.For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself 
  unfold most of the story.After David's heroic victory over the 
  Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1 Samual, Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan 
  for the first time. 1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan 
  was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 
  And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his 
  father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him 
  as his own soul. 4 And 
  Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, 
  a nd to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 
  1-4 Their souls are knit together, they love each other so 
  much that they made a covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips before David, who is much lower 
  in rank and 
  status.In the next passages, David's popularity and military achievements are 
  advanced, and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention 
  being paid to David. In 
  order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving him his daughter, Michal, to wed. Some people may 
  stop right here and say that 
  if David married Michal, it's 
  proof that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. There 
  are several flaws to this argument. First, their marriage was probably 
  only political. Saul offers his daughter's hand in marriage only as part of a greater plot 
  to get at David. And 
  while it was said that Michal 
  loved David, the Bible never says that he loved her back. Also, we know 
  from other ancient cultures such as the Greeks and even the Philistines, that heterosexual 
  marriages weren't necessarily exclusive. It's very possible that David 
  could have been bisexual. In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill 
  David, and David eventually 
  flees in 1 Samuel 20.1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? 
  what is mine iniquity? and 
  what is my

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

Why arn't you talking about the "gay issue?"  We are supposed to 
minister the way Jesus did as He is our example
and He always hit sin head on ie He confronted the rich young ruler with 
his heart of covetousness which he was not
yet willing to part with.  Jesus didn't chase after him and keep 
talking about grace.  He did minister to those God showed 
Him and warned them to go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon 
them.  But He didn't minister to everyone he met.
Today we take sin so lightly because we don't believe God means what 
He says or that the chaos in our lives is rooted 
in sin and unrighteousness.  God is supposed to bless this mess 
because of grace, because he loves us so much and this
is the lie.  He will not do it because to do so He would have to 
violate His own Word.  You can talk grace till the cows
come home but until this person hears the truth and is willing to 
repent from the heart God will not honor your words JD.  
 
 
 
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:15:10 -0500 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


Well,  maybe God has put us 
together "for such a time as this."   Right now the relationship is 
something of a novelty  --   at least for 
him.   My conversation with him is different from "the 
others."  So,  maybe I might be able to make sense to 
him.    What I am not doing is talking about the gay issue, 
per se.  He is but I am 
trying to get him to stop and examine what it means when it says that 
"Christ died for us while we were YET sinners."   My concern 
is that he understand the gospel of grace  and , and, and, what it 
really mean s to be "saved."    The new birth will 
produce   -  given time   ..  so 
that is where I begin  ---   with the new 
birth.JD 
I wish you well.  Terry
   

Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:48:45 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  Be sure and avoid dealing with the following:  
   
  Why does Paul restate the claim that "there is none who are righteous, no not one/"
   
  jt: Because unlike some on TT to Paul the fall was 'present day truth' to 
  be reckoned with.
   
  Why does he insist that we all continually fall short of the glory of 
  God? 
   
  jt: Because imputed righteousness is not enough and we don't learn how to 
  act right
  overnite. Being conformed to the image of God takes time.  
   
  Why is faith a substitute for righteous  -  or did you miss 
  that point?  
   
  jt: Faith without corresponding action is dead and not a substitute for 
  anything.
   
  When you quote passages like I Cor 
  6:9 as if that is the full statement on the doctrine of Heavenly Exclusion,  you trample the biblical 
  message and make pertinent and amending passages of no 
  account.  You make God an idiot. 
   
  jt: 1 Cor 6:9 is just as factual as any of the "love" passages you like 
  to claim.  
   
  Romans 1:18ff, for example, is not talking about men who are ungodly and unrighteous     heck, as noted above, we 
  are all in that boat.   Paul is talking about those who are ungodly and unrighteous AND suppress the truth AND do not honor God AND do 
  give thanks to Him AND practiced futile speculations AND worshipped 
  something other than God   
  -   because of all of this God gave them over to their 
  lusts.  
   
  jt: Yes, holding the truth in unrighteousness is not good and homosexuals 
  who know better put themselves in
  this position. 
   
  When you argue that unrighteousness, in and of itself, is that which 
  puts us out of favor with God, you truly condemn yourself, your grandchildren, 
  and all of mankind for we are all unrighteous and SO MUCH SO THAT GOD HAS TO 
  CONSIDER SOMETHING OTHER THAN RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE 
  ACTION OF JUSTIFICATION  -  He exchanges faith for 
  righteousness BECAUSE HE HAS TO.  JD
   
  jt: Speak for yourself JD. When we "by faith" do 
  what is right God acts accordingly and it is His standard we are
  to uphold rather than that of some unhinged 
  theologian who thinks he speaks for Him.
   
   
   
    -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
  Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:14:35 
  -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for homosecuality
  

  
  

  
  You say this to your 
  shame, Lance, not comprehending the Word of God, or even what it means to be 
  a true Believer.  (Anyone qualifies in your opinion.) izzy
   
  I Cor 6: 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not 
  inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.."
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:16 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument from 
  the gay community for homosecuality
   
  
  It (Christian homosexual) is no 
  more of an oxymoron than 'Christian 
  sinner',. In spite of the poor exegesis and poor theology to the contrary, this is so. 
  
  

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 


To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: 
September 27, 2005 17:12

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] an argument from the gay community for 
homosecuality

 
To you this is 
"well stated"??? To me it is too typical faggot tripe. And, FYI, there is no such thing as a "Christian homosexual".   izzy
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:20 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] an argument 
from the gay community for 
homosecuality
 


 

In case you were 
curious,  here is a rather well stated argument for homosexuality.  


Enjoy.  


 

JD 

 

 

  The Bible has 
often been used as a weapon to condemn homosexuality as sinful or immoral. It is often overlooked 
and even outrightly denied that some of 
the heroes in the Bible were themselves homosexual. The story of 
Jonathan and David is one of the 
more obvious cases.For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the 
Bible itself unfold most of the story.After David's heroic 
victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1 Samual, Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first 
time. 1 And it came to 
pass, when he had made an end of 
speaking unto Saul, that the soul of 
Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more ho

Re: [TruthTalk] Soldiers rebuke haunting New Orleans spirits

[Judith H Taylor]

Oh TT, I'm sure Izzy would want to evacuate with the murderers and rapists, 
is this what you want
her to say?  There has already been a rape at the Monroe LA Civic 
Center, just as their sheriff feared
and yesterday one evacuee stole anothers sneakers before 
resisting arrest and fighting police 
claiming the young boy stole them from him the day before.  It's one 
thing to stay in your high Colorado 
Dylan tower talking and another to get in the middle of all this 
mess.  So far as I can tell you've not left 
for the Gulf Coast either.  jt
 
 
 
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:55:26 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (you ain't 
  sorry; who'd you prefer him to evacuate with?)
   
  On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:21:01 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

Sorry, my son had 
to give up his “private” jet when he started flying for Fed 
Ex. 
||
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 9/11 overview

[Judith H Taylor]

I wouldn't receive it Izzy - It's got to be heresy because God doesn't 
respect any man's person.
IOW - He has no favorites, loves everyone but we receive according to our 
deeds. We are either 
for Him or we are against Him and receive blessing or curse 
accordingly.  Had a fantastic week of 
ministry in GA and met ppl from all over the US.  Tonight we are 
in Meridian MS on our way to AR 
for the Taylor family reunion.  
 
They had a pretty good hit by Ivan here - we see trees down and debris 
everywhere. The Welcome 
MS Rest Stop ladies told us that their lights were out and toilets not 
working for a couple of days 
which didn't make the truck drivers very happy.
 
BTW where did Lance and Jonathan retire to?
 
 
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:God has 
spoken to me to let me know (and pass it on) that Rudi is one of His 
favorites.  John the BelovedPraise God!!!  Could you 
check on the status of G for us now? Izzy
He said, "Absolutely."  
  John 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?

[Judith H Taylor]

Hi Slade and Izzy,
 
I agree that we can't know anything unless God reveals it to us but we do 
have the infine residing in the finite by way of the
Holy Spirit don't we?  God doesn't bless ignorance and we have our 
part to play in all of this which is seeking God and
seeking to do His will because he knows how to protect the righteous and 
how to preserve the wicked for the day of
destruction and I know which group I want to be numbered with, how about 
you?
 
Grace and Peace,
judyt
 
 
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:21:41 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Hello, my good friend Izzy!
   
  I 
  must admit that there is a bit of a problem with us trying to decide if this 
  or that disaster is the hand of a punishing God. We do have a small piece of 
  the Spirit of God within us but we don't have all of His consciousness and 
  thoughts within us. (Finite containing the infinite? 
  Hardly.)
   
  There are certain things that we ARE able to account for. A man's penis 
  falling off because he was a whore is a true and just reward. A woman 
  contracting a debilitating form of arthritis due to a high pork diet, too, is 
  a just reward for a disobedient and ill-informed lifestyle. The things that 
  strike the righteous along with the unrighteous should not be considered the 
  vengeful acts of a pissed-off god. It should be considered the reaction of 
  nature to the sheer weight of humanity's sin.
   
  -- 
  slade
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
ShieldsFamilySent: Sunday, 19 September, 2004 
14.49To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
[TruthTalk] Judgment?

Perhaps Florida did not 
execute Paul Hill fast enough? I think I’m with Terry—natural weather is 
natural weather.  It doesn’t mean we can’t pray to be spared, however. 

 
BTW, I remember 
when Missouri and other states in the 
Midwest voted to allow “riverboat” 
(river-side) gambling casinos, in spite of those of us who were strongly 
against it.  The following summer we dealt with the Great Flood of 
’93.  Somehow it did seem appropriate as God’s judgment.  It seems 
to me that a good parent, when disciplining a child, will make the 
punishment somehow relate to the crime.  This seemed to fit like a 
glove. 
 
Have you ever 
noticed that in individual lives? Perhaps I just have a weird way of looking 
at things in the spiritual realm. (Shut 
up Lance and G! J )  But I 
often think that if you really know a bit about the secret life of certain 
people you can make out just why God has allowed certain problems or 
“challenges” or judgments, or whatever you want to call it into their 
lives.  Certainly one cannot, like Job’s “friends” make such 
assumptions that problems indicate judgment.  But sometimes it’s hard 
to avoid what seems like an obvious connection.  Like the man who spent 
his life in sexual sin developing a certain disabling penile disease. Or the 
woman who spent her life berating and controlling her children, only to 
spend her later years being dominated and berated by her own husband.  
Am I being too real here?  As much as we want to, I don’t think we can 
laugh off the reality of reaping (after many “days”) the fruit of what we 
have sown over decades of rebellion to God. 
 
Izzy
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Slade 
HensonSent: Sunday, 
September 19, 2004 8:32 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Kruger
 

Oh my God, John... 
We know some of the same people. Neal Horsley mailed this same article to 
me. I was going to publish something on TruthTalk on this same subject but 
chose not to. If anything, the hurricanes should NOT be hitting Florida BECAUSE Florida executed the murderer Paul 
Hill.

 

-- 
slade

  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 19 September, 2004 
  06.52To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Kruger
  I am 
  not of this persuasion but it does illustrate the extremes we might 
  experience when we walk down the road of "judgmental" discovery  
  --  i.e. why "God has placed Florida under physical 
  judgment."   
    
  http://www.christiangallery.com/WrathofGod.htmJohn 

   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:11:47 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  The passage in 
  question, Michael, was Mark 4:35-41, esp. 
  40b.
   
  I am not one to 
  believe that God always takes us literally. What I mean is that when I use the 
  idiom, "this cold is killing me," I am not under immediate 
  threat of God killing me with the cold. I am merely stating that this cold 
  is causing me misery. Many, however, will teach that whatever comes out 
  of our mouths will cause either blessing or curse and that every word is 
  monitored by a cruel God who looks for ways to punish the slightest slip of 
  the tongue.
   
  jt: Hi again Slade; I 
  don't know about others but we do need to watch what comes out of our mouths 
  as we have another Kingdom watching and waiting for a doorpoint of entry into 
  our lives and God will not keep them out, this is our 
  responsibility.
   
  In like manner, I do 
  not believe that rock-solid faith is necessary for healing or for the 
  miraculous to occur. If that was true, then only those with the Gift of Faith 
  would see such things. I know some people who have seen miraculous things 
  happen in their lives and their response is often, "I can't 
  believe...," which is nothing more than an idiom that something 
  unexpected happened that still causes the head to reel. Therefore, 
  granite like faith is not necessary to see the blessings of 
  God.
   
  jt: I have no idea 
  what "granite like faith" would look like but nowhere in scripture do I see 
  God blessing unbelief and doubt. Even Jesus Himselfcould do no mighty works in 
  his hometown because of their unbelief.
   
  In like manner, I know 
  God sent me to sit at the feet of Godly men to learn how to properly divide 
  the Word of Truth so as not to fall victim to false teachings and the charisma 
  of cultic leaderships. Last year, nary a storm came to threaten my spiritual 
  utopia, but this year, the atmospheric activity has been rather high. Four 
  threatened evacuations (two actual evacs) thus far, and the season is not even 
  half over. Do I worry about my instructors, my schools, and the books I 
  require for scholastic study and ministry study in the future? Well, yes I 
  have. In the first Evac, I carried my Targums, one of my favorite 96-year-old 
  Bibles, my Young's Analytical Concordance, and my computer 
  (with all my work thus far) in the evacuation. The second time, I merely took 
  my computer tower.
   
  Then, the Mark 
  passage. I know God has brought me up out of the land of cult-like teachings 
  to a land flowing with Spiritual meat and honey. I know He has been true to 
  His promises, not only to me, but to all my fathers before me (i.e., Avraham, 
  Isaac/Yitzchak, Jacob/Yaakov -- ed. note: I sometimes have to edit my words so 
  please forgive me). I have the absolute, concrete facts in front of me. I walk 
  in the footsteps of Godly men who took God by the hand and allowed Him to lead 
  them as well. They held onto the same concrete [historical] facts I grasp. 
  This faith is concrete and real. There is nothing blind about it. I can point 
  to many situations in my life where God steered things to perfectly mold to my 
  needs within His purposes. Since He's done this in the past I KNOW without a 
  shade of doubt that this pattern will continue. This is faith -- and in the 
  face of possible danger, destruction, and death, I hold onto the promises of 
  God that He will see me through them all so I can accomplish the task He has 
  assigned to me and that He has given me the strength and the faith to 
  do.
   
  I know I am called 
  according to His purpose because God's promises are the only surety in 
  existence and His word is better than gold, even fine gold.   
  --slade
   
  amen & amen  
  jt
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of michael 
douglasSent: Monday, 13 September, 2004 17.33To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the 
Storm
Michael D: Hey Slade, I am happy to hear that 
something shared on the 'weather management theme seemed to benefit you (I 
am assuming that you're not pulling our legs). Do you care to give some 
insight into the passage you're referring to. This may be a bit of a selfish 
request, but just a hint that someone may have been able to lay 
hold on some of what I have been sharing  gives hope that I have 
not 'laboured' in vain on this issue.
Incidentally, twice I tried to give an account of 
God's miraculous deliverance from Ivan for Trinidad, and to a lesser extent 
Tobago, as requested by Izzy.  I did so on Friday night, and also 
today, and neither shows up on TT.  I might try one more time on that 
one.
Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  I would like to thank Michael Douglas for a small 
  Biblical passage he mentioned in

Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?

[Judith H Taylor]

Why would God's standard only apply to Christians? The world out there is 
also responsible whether or not they realize it.
Ignorance is no protection.  Lawbreakers are cursed as we write 
according to God's Word.
 
judyt
 
 
 
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:29:02 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:   Hm..Perhaps the river boats and casinos aren't 
  the focus of the punishment..maybe it is the Christian folks on them who 
  are drawing his wrath   ;-) ShieldsFamily 
  wrote:
  




  

==I 
missed something here Iz.  Why would God punish a river boat or a 
casino?Terry

Around 
here, the flood was called “God’s answer to gambling”.  
Izzy-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain Five email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Judgment?

[Judith H Taylor]

I've been at a seminar all week where they dealt with sin issues.  Not 
"gambling" per se but there is a spirit of addictions who takes
a lot of ground in these scenarios.  Of course there are also 
addictions to alcohol, food, shopping, etc. I don't see anything redeeming about 
gambling at all and recently it appears to have cropped up all over the 
world.  On Indian reservations they have legal gambling noand many states 
(including VA) instituted State Lotteries (supposedly to help education and to 
build hospitals) but the reality is that they are running the State 
with proceeds from gambling - same in the State of Victoria Australia where 
they have some shocking fruit with women leaving infants and children in cars 
while they go inside to lose the grocery money.  I don't want to judge or 
condemn anyone because what we do is between us and the Lord but IMO gambling 
has never been a blessing to a community - it's a curse and we would all be 
better off donating to whatever the need is.
 
Grace and Peace,
Judyt
 
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:52:28 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  Terry, Getting rich 
  by robbing the poor is condemned in the Bible.  Most of the folks you see 
  tromping onto the boats are obviously down on their “luck”.  I know 
  people who have ruined their lives with gambling. I also have friends who 
  consider gambling to be an innocent entertainment activity, and they take a 
  certain amount of money and don’t gamble away any more than that, and I don’t 
  mind that they do.  However, I don’t consider it wise stewardship, and I 
  don’t know of any serious Believers who waste their time or money that 
  way.  I don’t like living in a state that gains tax money from casinos 
  that take advantage of the poor and the compulsive gamblers.  It also 
  promotes corruption—where there is big money there is always that 
  danger.  So what’s your viewpoint? Do you think gambling is okay?  I 
  think spending a buck on a lottery ticket or a raffle quilt passes as harmless 
  entertainment; giving you a chance to daydream about winning if nothing else. 
  And far be it from me to rob the old folks of their Bingo fun! But, like so 
  many other grey areas, where do you draw the line? 
  Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Terry 
  CliftonSent: Sunday, 
  September 19, 2004 5:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Judgment?
   
  ShieldsFamily wrote: 
   
   
  
  
  
  
  ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
   
  Around 
  here, the flood was called “God’s answer to gambling”.  
  Izzy
  As near as I can tell Iz, 
  there is nothing about gambling being a sin in the Bible.  Can you point 
  me to a verse that I may have 
  missed?Terry
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:21:27 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  jt said: Hi again Slade; I don't know about others but we do 
  need to watch what comes out of our mouths as we have another Kingdom watching 
  and waiting for a doorpoint of entry into our lives and God will not keep them 
  out, this is our responsibility.
  slade says: Hello to you too, Judy. I 
  still am referring to idioms. If you are referring to idioms we are in 
  irreconcilable disagreement.
jt: Are you calling the devil 
  an idiom rather than a daily reality Slade?
  jt: I have no idea what "granite like faith" 
  would look like but nowhere in scripture do I see God blessing unbelief and 
  doubt.
  slade says: I am referring to "knowing without a 
  shade of doubt." I see faith [or at least a strong form of it perhaps] as 
  being a Spiritual gift given to some but not all. Someone with weaker faith 
  than another is not in sin because of his lack of faith. In a similar vein, 
  one person having less discernment than another is not in sin because of his 
  lack of discernment. We all need to lift each other up where we are strong and 
  get our strength from others where we are weak. This includes discernment as 
  well as faith.
  jt: Faith can grow; the scriptures teach that 
  "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" and in our generation 
  we are truly blessed to have access to this Word along with all the other 
  words vying for our attention.
  slade continues: I really hope my analogy 
  between weak faith and weak discernment is understood because I really don't 
  want to dwell on THAT topic as well. I tend to quickly dismiss a topic when 
  there is no connection/understanding between me and the other 
  person.
  jt: The way I understand it one either 
  walks in discernment or they walk in ignorance; they are either walking in 
  truth or they are walking in error. Not that anyone has all truth or all 
  knowledge but if the little one has is truth then we grow in that. Unbelief 
  and stiff necks are not good. 
  jt said: Even Jesus Himself could do no mighty works in his 
  hometown because of their unbelief.
  slade says: A little limiting but that's 
  ok. You don't believe in the Deity of Messiah Yeshua, do you? (I.e., Do you 
  believe Jesus is God)?
  jt: I do believe that Jesus is an equal 
  member of the Godhead but during His earthly ministry He made Himself subject 
  to the Father in every way. What would make you suggest that I don't 
  believe in His diety Slade?
  Just wondering, Grace and Peace,  
  judyt
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

During his earthly ministry Jesus only ever did what he first saw the 
Father doing so it wasn't a matter of "inability" - had faith been present 
there would have been no "unwillingness" because aside from faith it is 
impossible to please God and it is by faith that we receive His promises.  
Remember Abraham BELIEVED God and it was counted to him as righteousness.  
As for Jesus' deity, I believe He is and has always been God the Word but 
when He entered this dimension He layed aside the glory He had in heaven with 
the Father; He was born as a man under the law and He operated as a man under 
authority during the time of His ministry here so that He could leave us an 
example and we could follow "in His steps"  He said He spoke the 
Words given Him by the Father and He only did what He first saw the Father 
doing. He walked in the "fullness" of the Holy Spirit. We are each given a 
measure of the Spirit so the Church as a corporate body should be doing the 
same kind of works as Jesus did in the same kind of power and will be by the 
time He returns to claim us as His bride.
 
Are we at least close to the same page Slade :)  I know we can agree 
that he is "all loving" "all powerful" "all merciful" and "all sufficient"  
A church I attended once used to sing: "We've come this far by faith, 
leaning on the Lord. Trusting in His Holy Word, He's never failed us yet"  
Singing "Ooh we can't turn back."   "We've come this far by 
faith" 
 
 At the ministry where I just spent a week there are quite a few 
Jewish people volunteering there. Apparently many of them began to 
believe when the pastor showed them Jesus in the Torah, some were 
healed first but they all came to faith and are so zealous in the 
Lord's vineyard today because they now have zeal according to knowledge. It 
certainly is something to behold and a praise in the earth.
 
Grace and Peace,  Judy in LA
 
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:10:34 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  My 
  point is the difference between the "could" [the inability] and the 
  "would" [the unwillingness].
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry 
CliftonSent: Monday, 20 September, 2004 16.11To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the 
Storm

  jt said: Even Jesus Himself could do no mighty works in 
  his hometown because of their unbelief.
  slade says: A little limiting but 
  that's ok. You don't believe in the Deity of Messiah Yeshua, do you? 
  (I.e., Do you believe Jesus is God)?Since 
Judy's statement comes from the Bible, which is true, and since Jesus is 
God, isn't it possible that God limits Himself?  eg:  He only 
gives grace to the humble.Terry
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

Exactly Terry - couldn't have said it better.  Glad to hear that you 
and Vee were safe through
the storm.  jt
 
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:31:14 -0400 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Slade Henson wrote: 
  

My 
point is the difference between the "could" [the inability] and the 
"would" [the unwillingness].=I don't think 
  that Judy or any other true believer would question God's ability.  He is 
  omnipotent.  Still ,the Bible says He could not.  I take this to 
  mean not that He was impotent, but that He has set boundaries that He will not 
  cross ( rules that even He will not break).Evidently, one of those 
  rules required an attitude on the part of those there,  that those there 
  refused to adopt. ( similar to seeking grace without humility or salvation 
  without repentance.)God is unwilling to lower the bar, therefore He is 
  unable to act as He would act if His standards were met.That make 
  sense?Terry
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:26:09 -0400 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Michael D: When I've share with believers things 
  (even idioms and slang) that they need to watch, they've frown on it or 
  dismissed it as nonsense
   
  I am one who disagrees 
  with you. Our Master and King used idioms when He was walking the Earth and 
  Our Father in Heaven used idioms (even gross ones from our standards) in 
  his dealings with the Prophets. An idiom is just that... a flowery _expression_. 
  Nothing more. 
   
  jt: I'm not 
  understanding what you refer to here Slade - when/where did Jesus the Word of 
  God ever speak a "flowery _expression_" that was an idiom and nothing 
  more?  Why did Jesus say it is by our words that we are justified and by 
  our words we are condemned? Is this a powerless idiom or do these words mean 
  what they say?
   
  To advocate for more 
  is to advocate error... in my (apparently singular opinion on this forum)... 
  and I'm OK with that. I will say this, however, Michael... you are in good 
  company because a good friend of mine (Don) believes identical to you on this 
  point.-- 
  slade
   
  jt: I would be the 
  last one to advocate "magic, or New Age thinking" However, IMO this is a very 
  important principle. God is a God of His Word and Israel because of their own 
  choices were forced to learn this the hard way.  Since our purpose in 
  life is to be conformed to the image of Christ who in turn is the "image of 
  Father God" our words should be words of character and integrity. My 
  husband and I are presently staying with family members who are nominal 
  Christians and I am observing the use of words to manipulate a high 
  maintenance child. I believe these words will bear some rotten 
  fruit causing further bitterness and hardness in the life of this child 
  which is very sad.    judyt
   
   
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:17:53 +0100 (BST) michael douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Slade Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

jt said: Hi again Slade; I don't know about others but we do 
need to watch what comes out of our mouths as we have another Kingdom 
watching and waiting for a doorpoint of entry into our lives and God will 
not keep them out, this is our responsibility.
  Michael D: I have to concur with Judy here 
  110%.  I have lived this for years... God dealt with me to such 
  an extent, that there were times where in exasperation, I had to ask 
  God whether there is anything I can say at all...  When I've share with 
  believers things (even idioms and slangs) that they need to watch, 
  they've frown on it or dismissed it as nonsense, and even rebuked me. 
  Sometimes it's very humbling.
  jt: At the ministry where we just spent a week 
  the fruit of a person's mouth is important. Actually it reflects what is going 
  on in the heart because "out of the abundance that fills the heart, the mouth 
  speaks" but renewal of the mind must begin somewhere. The staff there would 
  correct each other in love and if one got on a negative roll someone would 
  usually say "don't talk like that"
  The fact is, as Judy stated above, that 
   we are living in an enemy occupied territory, and his kingdom holds sway 
  in the main. As a result, negatives/adversity have right of way, without much 
  effort exerted.  When folks utter negative things, it's easy for that to 
  be enforced in their circumstances.
  jt: True - Fear and Faith are equal in the 
  spiritual dimension and both demand to be fulfilled.
  For positive results, however, one has (as a 
  rule) to have a greater opposing effort of positive inputs (faith)  to 
  overthrow the negative forces holding sway... Words are spirit. Jesus said His 
  words were spirit and life.  THat tells me that his words took on an 
  additional characteristic to spirit, i.e. life.  
  jt: Exactly - I remember "Sing them over again 
  to me wonderful words of life" which I used to sing at the Methodist Church 
  before I had any idea what I was singing about.
  Proverbs tells us that death and life are 
  in the power of the tongue. So as words can be spirit and life, they can also 
  be spirit and death. Let me share an example...    
  One guy said that his foot was killing him, 
  having knocked it. Figurative in his mind, of course, but he does not realize 
  that he is realeasing a concept in the spirit world (killing him) that the 
  enemy would like to sieze upon. Keep saying those things long enough, and the 
  enemy will try to capitalize on them.
  jt: Thanks for the testimonies Michael - All I know is 
  that I would much rather be blessed than cursed and who we are in agreement 
  with carries a lot of weight. I don't subscribe to magic or New Age 
  concepts.  Neither do I want to agree with the devil in any area and 
  since he is so deceitful we need to stay alert.
  Thank God for the Holy Spirit who guides us into 
  truth. I try to be very careful about the things I say now. I do not say when 
  it rains... I now seek to determine how much it rains whenever it rains.  
  Storms like Ivan I would never refer to as 'Ivan the terrible' regardless of 
  how much it is doing, and how much the media trumpets that. The enemy 
  will have a field day with that. I seek to oppose that.  As true children 
  of God our lot is to determine outcomes not have them imposed upon us. Have I 
  always prevailed, no, but I know where I want and need to be by God's 
  grace...
  jt:  I hear you Michael. It has been a rude 
  awakening for me to come out of a loving and faith filled enviroment and be 
  exposed to TV for the first time. The prejudices two programs conveyed stuck 
  out "like a sore thumb" and both were against fatness and fat people something 
  that is also reflected in our society at large.   judyt
  slade says: Hello to you too, Judy. I 
  still am referring to idioms. If you are referring to idioms we are in 
  irreconcilable disagreement.jt: I have no 
  idea what "granite like faith" would look like but nowhere in scripture do I 
  see God blessing unbelief and doubt.
  
slade says: I am referring to "knowing without 
a shade of doubt." I see faith [or at least a strong form of it perhaps] as 
being a Spiritual gift given to some but not all. Someone with weaker faith 
than another is not in sin because of his lack of faith. In a similar vein, 
one person having less discernment than another is not in sin because of his 
lack of discernment. We all need to lift each other up where we are strong 
and get our strength from others where we are weak. This includes 
discernment as well as faith.
slade continues: I really hope my analogy 
between weak faith and weak discernment is understood because I really don't 
want to dwell on THAT topic as well. I tend to quick

[TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

God has given us a Republican president and it appears as though he will be 
around for another four years. Christ has addressed politics in Romans 13; we 
are told that Government is instituted by God and to submit to governing 
authorities.  As individuals we are to vote according to conscience 
and leave the results with God.  This time I don't see that there is much 
of a choice. One of these men is consistent - the other is 
doubleminded.  One is against abortion, the other for it.  One has an 
attractive and gracious wife, the other woman appears unstable.
 
I don't see that there is much of a choice for the conscientious 
believer.  judyt
 
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:09:50 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Izzy in a tizzy.  Shall I understand your answer to 
  be that you will not discuss the issues in light of the Bible?  Should 
  our Christianity infuse our politics?  Is this an area of life that 
  Christ cannot touch?  Does Christ only infuse conservative 
  politics?  Is God a Republican?  Is it not worthwhile looking at our 
  ideas and opinions in light of the Word?
  Jonathan Hughes  
   From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 22, 
  2004 9:12 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?
  
  
  Let’s change our name 
  to “PoliticalTalk”??? Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
  HughesSent: Wednesday, 
  September 22, 2004 6:38 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and 
  WHY?
   
  What is below is taken from www.sojo.net.  Please read it and 
  discuss.  Based upon the criteria below who should you vote for?  
  Shall we take each issue below and see who is the best candidate?  Is 
  anyone willing to discuss the issues?
   
  "It is the responsibility of every political 
  conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every 
  traditional Jew...to get serious about re-electing President Bush." - 
  Jerry Falwell, The New York Times, July 16, 
  2004
   
  "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I 
  really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout 
  election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him It doesn't make any 
  difference what he does, good or bad." 
  - Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 
  2004
   
   
  


  
These leaders of the Religious Right 
mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that 
Christians should only vote for George W. 
Bush.
We believe that claims of 
divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his 
policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his 
re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion. 

We believe that sincere 
Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President 
Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons 
deeply rooted in their faith. 
We believe all candidates 
should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete 
range of Christian ethics and values. 
We will measure the 
candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human 
rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; 
whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; 
whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance 
the common good rather than only individual, national, and special 
interests.
   
  


  

  
  

   
   We 
  are not single-issue voters.
  We 
  believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a 
  religious issue. Do the candidates' 
  budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for 
  poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and 
  debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 
  25:35-40, Isaiah 
  10:1-2) 
  We 
  believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a 
  religious issue. Do the candidates' 
  policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that 
  damage it? (Genesis 
  2:15, Psalm 
  24:1) 
  We 
  believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' 
  policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and 
  cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 
  5:9) 
  We 
  believe that truth-telling is a religious 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

Jonathan:
We are on vacation - I am using a laptop and am not online long enough to 
read articles because we are using someone elses phone line, we mainly send and 
receive email. By the time we are back in VA and I could read the article you 
will have lost interest. I have my own opinions about the two candidates for my 
own reasons.  Bush is against abortion but there is only so much anyone 
with convictions can do in the political arena, he is not a "one man 
band".  I don't have access to what I need to write out how Kerry is double 
minded but if you lived here you would hear it in the media because there is 
another side to the story you know.
 
I like the fact that President Bush took a stand when those "terrorists" 
stole three aeroplanes on 9-11-2001 and destroyed two skyscrapers in New York, 
killing 3,000 people along with part of the Pengagon and ran the other into a 
field in PA. He has stayed with the committment he made that day no matter how 
tough it has been for him politically.  Kerry has been stirring things up 
against the US by encouraging Australians to turn against Howard and telling 
them that the US is responsible for the terrorist bombing near their embassy in 
Jakarta which is really sweet.
I don't understand why you and Lance are so opinionated about these issues 
or why it is important to you who is elected here. Kerry claims to be a RC and 
has taken a stand against his own Church on the issue of abortion.  Have 
you checked his voting record in the US Senate lately?
 
judyt
 
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:13:37 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy,
   
  Please read the whole article below and comment on the 
  biblical passages in light of the candidates, not your generalizing without 
  any mention of facts.  It is unlike you to avoid the Bible on issues like 
  this.  And since when did God give you the president?  Don't blame 
  God for your mess.  Did God give Germany Hitler?  How naive.  
  America elected Gore.  The Supreme Court chose Bush.
   
  Please quote for me how Kerry is for abortion.  
  Please quote for me exactly what Bush has done to stop abortion even though he 
  personally says he is against it.  Show me the policies he has put 
  through to stop it from occurring.  To help you out here is what Kerry 
  has done and said:
  http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm.  
  Here is what Bush has done and said: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm.  
  Please read these and determine how Bush actually feels about abortion.  
  He may be against it (and he is only against it in certain cases mind you) but 
  what has he put into law to stop it?  What good does it do for you and I 
  to have a president in the White House who is against something but does 
  nothing about it and has stated that he will do nothing about 
  it?
   
  Please show me how Kerry is double minded.  Write it 
  out.  I hear the claim all the time but have yet to see one 
  person/newscast prove it.  Show me how being consistent is a trait you 
  like in a President.  I don't view consistency necessarily as a good 
  trait.  One can be consistently wrong just as easily (in fact more 
  easily) than consistently right.  The right has done a good job labeling 
  Kerry as a flip-flopper.  When one looks at the facts it just isn't true 
  (any more than Bush is a flip-flopper).  Why people give up their ability 
  to think critically when politics is on the line is beyond 
  me.
   
  Kerry's wife is definitely unstable but some may think 
  her to be just as attractive as Bush's.
   
  Jonathan 
   
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:43 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
  
  God has given us a Republican president and it appears as though he will 
  be around for another four years. Christ has addressed politics in Romans 13; 
  we are told that Government is instituted by God and to submit to governing 
  authorities.  As individuals we are to vote according to conscience 
  and leave the results with God.  This time I don't see that there is much 
  of a choice. One of these men is consistent - the other is 
  doubleminded.  One is against abortion, the other for it.  One has 
  an attractive and gracious wife, the other woman appears unstable.
   
  I don't see that there is much of a choice for the conscientious 
  believer.  judyt
   
   
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:09:50 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Izzy in a tizzy.  Shall I understand your answer 
to be that you will not discuss the issues in light of the Bible?  
Should our Christianity infuse our politics?  Is this an area of life 
that Christ cannot touch?  Does Christ only infuse conservative 
politics?  Is God a Republican?  Is it not worthwhile looking at 
our ideas and opinions

Re: [TruthTalk] Dan Rather

[Judith H Taylor]

CBS has apologized and Rather is still sticking to his guns, there is 
something wrong with this picture but not much point
in arguing about it since noone knows what Rather knew or how/when he knew 
it.  It's just sad that he chooses to hold to the
lie when his story has been exposed already.  As for the WMD issue. 
The jury is still out on that one   It's good not to be part
of other men's sin.  
 
judyt
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:46:38 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

   
  Jonathan in blue.
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:24 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Dan Rather
  In a message dated 9/22/2004 5:30:34 AM Pacific 
  Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  Dan Rather, CBS News 
Anchor1) given documents he thought were true no evidence for this 
whatsoever Other than his own word.  You may dislike Rather (and I am 
probably in that crowd) but there is no reason to think that he is 
stupid.  To put out documents that he knew were false just to slander a 
president is highly unlike who Rather has shown himself to be.  Once 
again, he is not stupid.
  2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts within 3 
hours of the release of these "documents,"  they were fully exposed as 
fake  -- proving that almost no investigation was 
necessary.   All other news agencies (NBC, Time for example) tuned 
done the initial offering out of hand.   They 
were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 hours.  Web logs (called 
blogs) called their authenticity into question within 3 hours.  The 
proof was still being worked on.  As we all know the investigation has 
to be into why the fact-checking was not done.  Rather does the 
interviews and reads copy.  Don't confuse him with being the person who 
did the initial investigation.
  3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his 
case the only 
news anchor to do so Aye but 
not the only news agency/paper.  I believe it was first done in the 
Boston Globe.  It spread on the internet like wildfire.  Every 
news agency talked about it.
  4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an 
investigation two weeks later and after being under intense pressur 
to do so   ..  his initial response was one of 
defiance. His initial 
response was that he thought they were true.  Interestingly enough the 
Bush administration has not denied the actual charges.  The people who 
came forward to say that the documents were forged also came forward to say 
that the sentiment and the information behind the documents was true.  
It matters not one whit that the documents were forged if the facts 
contained in them are true which certainly seems to be the case.  
Contrast this with the Swift Boat crowd.  Their documents and their 
facts were both false.  
  5) number of Americans dead: 0 Well, one out of six isn't bad 
(?)
  6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor Since I stopped watching 
Blather after his kiss up interview with Saddam, I don't really 
care.   Network news has lost nearly 70% of its audience since the 
early 1980's.   Except for Fox :) It can be 
argued that Larry Flint's filth has caused "0" deaths  -- but 
Flint's  standard of worth is not the war issue.  Understand that 
I am not arguing for the war in Iraq.   It is just that the 
implied standard of judgment should not be whether or not someone has 
died. The 
standard of judgment here is consequences.  Rather's consequences for 
using forged documents are trifling.  Bush's are enormous.  At 
least one apologized.
  a 
  brotherJohn
  
  
  
  This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
  information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
  immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any 
  dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended 
  recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation 
  in connection with the above.Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents 
  s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si 
  vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son 
  expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie 
  (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information 
  par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être 
  illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. 
  
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Dan Rather

[Judith H Taylor]

Bush was given an honorable discharge from the National Guard. He fulfilled 
his enlistment.
What is your problem Jonathan?  judyt
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:51:27 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  As a follow-up, the information contained in the memos is 
  true.  Note how the Bush administration has not denied it.  The 
  memos themselves are forged.  Can you see the 
  difference?
  Jonathan  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:00 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
  Rather
  
  
  CBS has apologized and Rather is still sticking to his guns, there is 
  something wrong with this picture but not much point
  in arguing about it since noone knows what Rather knew or how/when he 
  knew it.  It's just sad that he chooses to hold to the
  lie when his story has been exposed already.  As for the WMD issue. 
  The jury is still out on that one   It's good not to be part
  of other men's sin.  
   
  judyt
   
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:46:38 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
 
Jonathan in blue.
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:24 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Dan Rather
In a message dated 9/22/2004 5:30:34 AM 
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
Dan Rather, CBS News 
  Anchor1) given documents he thought were true no evidence for this 
  whatsoever Other than his own word.  You may dislike 
  Rather (and I am probably in that crowd) but there is no reason to think 
  that he is stupid.  To put out documents that he knew were false just 
  to slander a president is highly unlike who Rather has shown himself to 
  be.  Once again, he is not stupid.
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts within 3 hours of the release of these 
  "documents,"  they were fully exposed as fake  -- proving that 
  almost no investigation was necessary.   All other news agencies 
  (NBC, Time for example) tuned done the initial offering out of 
  hand.   They were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 
  hours.  Web logs (called blogs) called their authenticity into 
  question within 3 hours.  The proof was still being worked on.  
  As we all know the investigation has to be into why the fact-checking was 
  not done.  Rather does the interviews and reads copy.  Don't 
  confuse him with being the person who did the initial 
  investigation.
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make 
  his case the only news anchor to do 
  so Aye but not the only news agency/paper.  I 
  believe it was first done in the Boston Globe.  It spread on the 
  internet like wildfire.  Every news agency talked about 
  it.
4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an 
  investigation two weeks later and after being under intense 
  pressur to do so   ..  his initial response was one of 
  defiance. His 
  initial response was that he thought they were true.  Interestingly 
  enough the Bush administration has not denied the actual charges.  
  The people who came forward to say that the documents were forged also 
  came forward to say that the sentiment and the information behind the 
  documents was true.  It matters not one whit that the documents were 
  forged if the facts contained in them are true which certainly seems to be 
  the case.  Contrast this with the Swift Boat crowd.  Their 
  documents and their facts were both false.  
  
5) number of Americans dead: 0 Well, one out of six isn't 
  bad (?)
6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor Since I stopped 
  watching Blather after his kiss up interview with Saddam, I don't really 
  care.   Network news has lost nearly 70% of its audience since 
  the early 1980's.   Except for Fox :) It can be 
  argued that Larry Flint's filth has caused "0" deaths  -- but 
  Flint's  standard of worth is not the war issue.  Understand 
  that I am not arguing for the war in Iraq.   It is just that the 
  implied standard of judgment should not be whether or not someone has 
  died. The 
  standard of judgment here is consequences.  Rather's consequences for 
  using forged documents are trifling.  Bush's are enormous.  At 
  least one apologized.
a 
brotherJohn


  
  
  
  This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
  information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
  immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any 
  dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended 
  recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Than

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

H...  John Edwards, a real man of integrity who made himself rich 
by junk medical malpractice lawsuits using unproven theories?Oh well, as the 
saying goes, 'opinions are like noses, everyone has one' but most of the time 
they don't amount to much. I'm curious Jonathan, where does faith in God enter 
in to this scenario?  Looks like from your perspective America is going 
over the cliff one way or the other.  judyt
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:25:31 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Laugh out 
  loud!
   
  *breathes*
   
  I also do not think 
  Kerry will make a good president.  I don’t mind his running mate John 
  Edwards though.  Kerry’s platform is remarkably similar to Bush’s.  
  On many of the points Terry made Bush is equally as guilty (Bush is not for 
  firearms, Bush was a far worse Senator than Kerry [unless you were rich], Bush 
  supports ‘civil unions’ between homosexuals just as Kerry does, neither will 
  do a thing about abortion etc.  And the thing about Kerry’s men disliking 
  him is just a plain lie.  The people that served under Kerry on his boat 
  all support him – except for one since he is dead.  I owe this point to 
  Bill O’Reilly.  The reason the other men do not like Kerry is that he was 
  very anti-war and came back telling of its atrocities.  This did not go 
  over well with the men who fought alongside him and fought valiantly.  
  Kerry screwed up there.)  It would come as no surprise to anyone on this 
  forum that I believe Bush is a war criminal.  To remove him from office 
  should the first concern of any Christian.  Tell a Muslim that George 
  Bush is a Christian and then ask him to convert to Christ.  Would I take 
  Kerry over Bush?  Yes, hands down.  Do I think Kerry will do 
  well?  I doubt it.  Both men will take America over the cliff, one a 
  lot sooner than the other.
   
  *breathes*
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  In a message dated 9/22/2004 
  5:50:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  It 
  would take either a blithering idiot or the world's most gullible person to 
  believe that this man could be a good senator, let alone a good 
  president.  Al Sharpton looks good compared to Kerry.
  TerryOn 
  man !  Listen to me, Jonathan  --  "breathe in  ---  
  breathe out   --- breathe in   ---  breathe 
  out   
  .."John
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
  Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

Just one more indication that you don't understand American politics 
Jonathan.  Governors of Texas do not vote in the Senate. Also a platform is 
a "party platform"  It is not a list of the man's personal preferences as 
you are making it appear.  As I've pointed out already George W. is not a 
"one man band" - You call Bush a war criminal for taking action against 
terrorist groups who hate us and spend their time and energy plotting our 
destruction?  Just where are you at Jonathan - this is way out there?
 
judyt
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:35:52 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Quick 
  correction.  Bush was a governor.  Kerry is the 
  Senator.
   
  J
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
  HughesSent: Wednesday, 
  September 22, 2004 9:26 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  Laugh out 
  loud!
   
  *breathes*
   
  I also do not think 
  Kerry will make a good president.  I don’t mind his running mate John 
  Edwards though.  Kerry’s platform is remarkably similar to Bush’s.  
  On many of the points Terry made Bush is equally as guilty (Bush is not for 
  firearms, Bush was a far worse Senator than Kerry [unless you were rich], Bush 
  supports ‘civil unions’ between homosexuals just as Kerry does, neither will 
  do a thing about abortion etc.  And the thing about Kerry’s men disliking 
  him is just a plain lie.  The people that served under Kerry on his boat 
  all support him – except for one since he is dead.  I owe this point to 
  Bill O’Reilly.  The reason the other men do not like Kerry is that he was 
  very anti-war and came back telling of its atrocities.  This did not go 
  over well with the men who fought alongside him and fought valiantly.  
  Kerry screwed up there.)  It would come as no surprise to anyone on this 
  forum that I believe Bush is a war criminal.  To remove him from office 
  should the first concern of any Christian.  Tell a Muslim that George 
  Bush is a Christian and then ask him to convert to Christ.  Would I take 
  Kerry over Bush?  Yes, hands down.  Do I think Kerry will do 
  well?  I doubt it.  Both men will take America over the cliff, one a 
  lot sooner than the other.
   
  *breathes*
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  In a message dated 9/22/2004 
  5:50:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  It 
  would take either a blithering idiot or the world's most gullible person to 
  believe that this man could be a good senator, let alone a good 
  president.  Al Sharpton looks good compared to Kerry.
  TerryOn 
  man !  Listen to me, Jonathan  --  "breathe in  ---  
  breathe out   --- breathe in   ---  breathe 
  out   
  .."John
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
  Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
  ---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
  Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
  Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
So this is the list of scriptures you say are so well thought out Jonathan? 
I'm not a follower of either Falwell or Robertson but you are assuming they mean 
something they are not saying. I have heard Pat Robertson state in the past that 
no nation has God in their back pocket. Who are these sojo.net people?  

 
One thing is certain, they don't know God and they are taking scripture out 
of it's setting and making it appear to say something that was never  
intended by the author - which, in effect, sets themselves up as God's 
spokespersons while they ignore Romans 13 and other 
scriptures that show Government is instituted by God to keep anarchy 
from ruling and reigning.  Our Government wields the sword but 
is never supposed to take the place of God in this world as you and these 
people appear to conclude.  
 
What? Do you think God is unable to take care of the environment but man 
can?  Also why do these people state that the "image of God" 
is in every man when the first man Adam lost it?   It reappeared 
in the second Adam and can be seen today only in those who conform to HIS 
image so the foundation for "human rights" below has some huge cracks in 
it.
 
We should love first God, then others along with ourselves because He 
first loved us and He will empower us in accomplishing this because of 
Christ. You and these Sojo.net people need to re evaluate your own 
platform or you will find yourself fighting against God rather than working for 
Him because He is not and has never been in the business of preserving a bunch 
of devils or in validating lies.  
 
When all else fails, HIS WORD will be left standing - IN BALANCE AND IN 
CONTEXT.   judyt
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:37:48 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  What is below is taken from www.sojo.net.  Please read it and 
  discuss.  Based upon the criteria below who should you vote for?  
  Shall we take each issue below and see who is the best candidate?  Is 
  anyone willing to discuss the issues?
   
  "It is the responsibility of every political 
  conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every 
  traditional Jew...to get serious about re-electing President Bush." - 
  Jerry Falwell, The New York Times, July 16, 
  2004
   
  "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I 
  really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout 
  election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him It doesn't make any 
  difference what he does, good or bad." 
  - Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 
  2004
   
   
  


  
These leaders of the Religious Right 
mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that 
Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.
We believe that claims of 
divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his 
policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his 
re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion. 

We believe that sincere 
Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President 
Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons 
deeply rooted in their faith. 
We believe all candidates 
should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete 
range of Christian ethics and values. 
We will measure the 
candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human 
rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; 
whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; 
whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance 
the common good rather than only individual, national, and special 
interests.
   
  


  


  
  

  We are not single-issue 
  voters.
  We 
  believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a 
  religious issue. Do the candidates' 
  budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for 
  poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and 
  debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 
  25:35-40, Isaiah 
  10:1-2) 
  We 
  believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a 
  religious issue. Do the candidates' 
  policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that 
  damage it? (Genesis 
  2:15, Psalm 
  24:1) 
  We 
  believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' 
  policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and 
  cooperation in responding to real 

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

This is really a shock to me. What has happened to David Miller?  
We've not heard anything from him in many moons and now it sounds as 
though he has really lost his grip on reality.  Just what does 
anyone's political opinion have to do with Truth? Also how does "being serious" 
ensure that we are on the right track here?  It's possible to be 
"seriously deceived" and as for ignorance, well this too is a form of 
knowledge... 
Izzy is right to separate Truth from Politics and you are wrong to accuse 
her and to publicly call her a liar just because you don't understand what she 
is about.  Sounds as though David Miller has been recruited by Elsman and 
at this rate Elsman's "off the wall" prophecy will be self fulfilling.  
judyt
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:52:06 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Izzy,
   
  A week and a half ago 
  David Miller emailed me asking me to take over the moderator position on this 
  forum.  Surprised I sent back an email to him asking why me when it is 
  obvious that most of my views are disregarded and considered heretical.  
  He wrote back that I took the discussions seriously and that Truthtalk is very 
  much in need of a serious person taking the reins.  I agree with 
  David.  While I declined the opportunity for a number of reasons I did 
  tell him that I would attempt to move the subject matter to a serious 
  discussion.  This morning I sent out a very serious post asking why 
  people will vote for their respective candidate.  It included a number of 
  the issues accompanied by biblical passages referring to them.  Instead 
  of taking it seriously you wrote back a silly little email saying that we 
  should rename the forum PoliticalTalk.  I am sick of your political 
  façade and today I decided not to stand for it anymore.  You display such 
  marvelous talents at so many things but when it comes to politics you refuse 
  to think at all.  When questioned, critiqued or even looked at you hide 
  behind a mask that pretends to be informed but really is ignorant.  When 
  it comes to politics you won’t even consider them in light of the Bible.  
  It is astounding.
   
  When you still 
  refused to think (or even go to google and type in constitutional party!) I 
  took one of the issues you kept putting forward in favour of Bush: 
  abortion.  I have given you lots of evidence that Bush does not view 
  abortion the same way you do.  While he may disagree with it to bring in 
  a few voters, in reality he has supported it with the legislation he put 
  through.  I ask the question again:  What does it matter if Bush is 
  against abortion but works for it in the White House and has publicly stated 
  he will not even attempt to make it illegal?  If abortion was the only 
  issue one could vote for Kerry or Bush.  Both will do exactly the same 
  thing: support if financially (as Bush has already done to the tune of half a 
  billion dollars!) and not take steps towards outlawing it.  Now that you 
  are aware of this what will you do?  We can move onto other issues if you 
  like.  What will it take to get you to think through why you are voting 
  for Bush (or Kerry or whoever it may be)?  The decision of who the next 
  president of the USA is perhaps the most important decision to be made this 
  decade.  Keep in the back of your mind: when you put an X next to Bush’s 
  (or Kerry’s) name in 6 weeks you doom many more babies to die.  When it 
  comes to politics ignorance is not bliss.
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Jonathan 
  HughesSent: Wednesday, 
  September 22, 2004 7:26 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  Izzy,
   
  Stop 
  running.
   
  Now that you know 
  what Bush actually thinks about abortion do you still support him?  If so 
  why.  If not why?  Do you agree with what Bush has done in the White 
  House for abortion?  Do you think he should be supporting organizations 
  that approve of abortion?
   
  Are you on this forum 
  to discuss or just belittle those that disagree with you as ‘liberals’?  
  Once again either put up or shut up.
   
  Jonathan
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:20 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  Jonathan, We will not 
  discuss anything until you calm down.  Right now you are not appearing to 
  be open to any reasoning at all. Izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Hughes 
  JonathanSent: Wednesday, 
  September 22, 2004 12:59 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, 
  and WHY?
   
  More stuff on Bush 
  and abortion.  Izzy, do you still feel the same way about Bush after 
  reading this?  Does abortion really matter to you?
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Dan Rather

[Judith H Taylor]

Then Mr. Accuser looks as though my daughter is a liar also and she 
has the time to keep up with this stuff.   She sent me the following 
this morning:
 
"I don't know if you've had time to pay attention, but I've been a bit 
obsessed with the whole Dan Rather memogate situation.  I am outraged that 
Rather refuses to acknowledge that the memos are forgeries, which is blatantly 
obvious, and still insists that the story is "true".  Hisarrogance and 
liberal bias have really gotten the best of him, but I love the fact that he has 
been hoisted on his petard by the "geeks in pajamas"who made fast work of 
dissecting the memos that Rather breathlessly flourished on "60 Minutes 
II".
 
I don't find you calling everyone who is not in agreement with you "a 
liar" an enlightening discussion Jonathan, it's also disrespectful.  
judyt 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:47:37 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Sigh Judy.  More lies.  Rather has apologized 
  personally on air, not just CBS.
   
  The jury is still out on the WMD issue?  Your jokes 
  are funny.
  Jonathan Hughes  
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:00 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
  Rather
  
  CBS has apologized and Rather is still sticking to his guns, there is 
  something wrong with this picture but not much point
  in arguing about it since noone knows what Rather knew or how/when he 
  knew it.  It's just sad that he chooses to hold to the
  lie when his story has been exposed already.  As for the WMD issue. 
  The jury is still out on that one   It's good not to be part
  of other men's sin.  
   
  judyt
   
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:46:38 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
 
Jonathan in blue.
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:24 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Dan Rather
In a message dated 9/22/2004 5:30:34 AM 
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
Dan Rather, CBS News 
  Anchor1) given documents he thought were true no evidence for this 
  whatsoever Other than his own word.  You may dislike 
  Rather (and I am probably in that crowd) but there is no reason to think 
  that he is stupid.  To put out documents that he knew were false just 
  to slander a president is highly unlike who Rather has shown himself to 
  be.  Once again, he is not stupid.
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts within 3 hours of the release of these 
  "documents,"  they were fully exposed as fake  -- proving that 
  almost no investigation was necessary.   All other news agencies 
  (NBC, Time for example) tuned done the initial offering out of 
  hand.   They were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 
  hours.  Web logs (called blogs) called their authenticity into 
  question within 3 hours.  The proof was still being worked on.  
  As we all know the investigation has to be into why the fact-checking was 
  not done.  Rather does the interviews and reads copy.  Don't 
  confuse him with being the person who did the initial 
  investigation.
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make 
  his case the only news anchor to do 
  so Aye but not the only news agency/paper.  I 
  believe it was first done in the Boston Globe.  It spread on the 
  internet like wildfire.  Every news agency talked about 
  it.
4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an 
  investigation two weeks later and after being under intense 
  pressur to do so   ..  his initial response was one of 
  defiance. His 
  initial response was that he thought they were true.  Interestingly 
  enough the Bush administration has not denied the actual charges.  
  The people who came forward to say that the documents were forged also 
  came forward to say that the sentiment and the information behind the 
  documents was true.  It matters not one whit that the documents were 
  forged if the facts contained in them are true which certainly seems to be 
  the case.  Contrast this with the Swift Boat crowd.  Their 
  documents and their facts were both false.  
  
5) number of Americans dead: 0 Well, one out of six isn't 
  bad (?)
6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor Since I stopped 
  watching Blather after his kiss up interview with Saddam, I don't really 
  care.   Network news has lost nearly 70% of its audience since 
  the early 1980's.   Except for Fox :) It can be 
  argued that Larry Flint's filth has caused "0" deaths  -- but 
  Flint's  standard of worth is not the war issue.  Understand 
  that I am not arguing for the war in Iraq.   It is just

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

He is a convert to Islam and a follower in the past of "known radical" 
Islamist terrorist type leaders
which is good reason plus whatever Homeland Security is aware of that we 
don't know.
judyt
 
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:06:50 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/22/2004 8:32:52 PM Pacific Daylight 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  And why 
is he a terrorist suspect, exactly? IzzyThey probably do not know for 
  sure.   Maybe it was his singing.  John 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

When I read what you wrote in context - to me it implied that both Kerry 
and Bush had a "voting record" that you were
making reference to.  I read the correction also.  jt
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:51:17 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I never impled that Bush voted in the Senate.  
  My correction was to my sentence that Bush was far worse a Senator than Kerry 
  was.  Bush was a governor which I immediately posted.  No where did 
  I mention Bush voting in the Senate.  Take the time to read my posts 
  Judith.
  Jonathan Hughes  
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:36 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
  for, and WHY?
  
  Just one more indication that you don't understand American politics 
  Jonathan.  Governors of Texas do not vote in the Senate. Also a platform 
  is a "party platform"  It is not a list of the man's personal preferences 
  as you are making it appear.  As I've pointed out already George W. is 
  not a "one man band" - You call Bush a war criminal for taking action against 
  terrorist groups who hate us and spend their time and energy plotting our 
  destruction?  Just where are you at Jonathan - this is way out 
  there?
   
  judyt
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:35:52 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

Quick 
correction.  Bush was a governor.  Kerry is the 
Senator.
 
J
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Jonathan 
HughesSent: Wednesday, 
September 22, 2004 9:26 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
for, and WHY?
 
Laugh out 
loud!
 
*breathes*
 
I also do not think 
Kerry will make a good president.  I don’t mind his running mate John 
Edwards though.  Kerry’s platform is remarkably similar to 
Bush’s.  On many of the points Terry made Bush is equally as guilty 
(Bush is not for firearms, Bush was a far worse Senator than Kerry [unless 
you were rich], Bush supports ‘civil unions’ between homosexuals just as 
Kerry does, neither will do a thing about abortion etc.  And the thing 
about Kerry’s men disliking him is just a plain lie.  The people that 
served under Kerry on his boat all support him – except for one since he is 
dead.  I owe this point to Bill O’Reilly.  The reason the other 
men do not like Kerry is that he was very anti-war and came back telling of 
its atrocities.  This did not go over well with the men who fought 
alongside him and fought valiantly.  Kerry screwed up there.)  It 
would come as no surprise to anyone on this forum that I believe Bush is a 
war criminal.  To remove him from office should the first concern of 
any Christian.  Tell a Muslim that George Bush is a Christian and then 
ask him to convert to Christ.  Would I take Kerry over Bush?  Yes, 
hands down.  Do I think Kerry will do well?  I doubt it.  
Both men will take America over the cliff, one a lot sooner than the 
other.
 
*breathes*
 
Jonathan
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 
8:59 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
for, and WHY?
 
In a message dated 9/22/2004 
5:50:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
It 
would take either a blithering idiot or the world's most gullible person to 
believe that this man could be a good senator, let alone a good 
president.  Al Sharpton looks good compared to Kerry.
TerryOn 
man !  Listen to me, Jonathan  --  "breathe in  
---  breathe out   --- breathe in   ---  
breathe out   
.."John
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
 
  
  
  
  This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
  information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
  immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any 
  dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended 
  recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation 
  in connection with the above.Ce courriel ain

Re: [TruthTalk] Dan Rather

[Judith H Taylor]

Does timing mean nothing to you?
My daughter sent this before the "subdued Rather" fessed up on the CBS 
Evening News.
For someone taking on so much Jonathan, you don't have all the facts 
straight... jt
 
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:41:33 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Then a liar you and your daughter 
are:
  
  "I want to say, personally and directly, I’m sorry," a subdued Rather said 
  yesterday on the "CBS Evening News."
  http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Sep/20040921News012.asp
  Look 
  on any news site.  He has apologized.  
  Next?
  Jonathan Hughes 
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:41 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
  Rather
  
  Then Mr. Accuser looks as though my daughter is a liar also and she 
  has the time to keep up with this stuff.   She sent me the following 
  this morning:
   
  "I don't know if you've had time to pay attention, but I've been a bit 
  obsessed with the whole Dan Rather memogate situation.  I am outraged 
  that Rather refuses to acknowledge that the memos are forgeries, which is 
  blatantly obvious, and still insists that the story is "true".  
  Hisarrogance and liberal bias have really gotten the best of him, but I 
  love the fact that he has been hoisted on his petard by the "geeks in 
  pajamas"who made fast work of dissecting the memos that Rather 
  breathlessly flourished on "60 Minutes II".
   
  I don't find you calling everyone who is not in agreement with you 
  "a liar" an enlightening discussion Jonathan, it's also disrespectful.  
  judyt 
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:47:37 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Sigh Judy.  More lies.  Rather has apologized 
personally on air, not just CBS.
 
The jury is still out on the WMD issue?  Your 
jokes are funny.
Jonathan Hughes  




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:00 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
Rather

CBS has apologized and Rather is still sticking to his guns, there is 
something wrong with this picture but not much point
in arguing about it since noone knows what Rather knew or how/when he 
knew it.  It's just sad that he chooses to hold to the
lie when his story has been exposed already.  As for the WMD 
issue. The jury is still out on that one   It's good not to be 
part
of other men's sin.  
 
judyt
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:46:38 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

   
  Jonathan in blue.
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:24 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Dan Rather
  In a message dated 9/22/2004 5:30:34 AM 
  Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  Dan Rather, CBS News 
Anchor1) given documents he thought were true no evidence for this 
whatsoever Other than his own word.  You may 
dislike Rather (and I am probably in that crowd) but there is no reason 
to think that he is stupid.  To put out documents that he knew were 
false just to slander a president is highly unlike who Rather has shown 
himself to be.  Once again, he is not 
stupid.
  2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts within 3 hours of the release of these 
"documents,"  they were fully exposed as fake  -- proving that 
almost no investigation was necessary.   All other news 
agencies (NBC, Time for example) tuned done the initial offering out of 
hand.   They were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 hours.  
Web logs (called blogs) called their authenticity into question within 3 
hours.  The proof was still being worked on.  As we all know 
the investigation has to be into why the fact-checking was not 
done.  Rather does the interviews and reads copy.  Don't 
confuse him with being the person who did the initial 
investigation.
  3) reported documents to the American people as true to make 
his case the only news anchor to do 
so Aye but not the only news agency/paper. 
 I believe it was first done in the Boston Globe.  It spread 
on the internet like wildfire.  Every news agency talked about 
it.
  4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched 
an investigation two weeks later and after being under intense 
pressur to do so   ..  his initial response was one of 
defiance. His 
initial response was that he thought they were true.  Interestingly 
enough the Bush administration has not denied the actual char

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

It's just like house cleaning Jonathan, things often look worse before they 
get better.  judyt
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:49:01 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Read your papers Judith.  Terrorism is on the 
  rise.  Your phony war in Iraq has increased Al Queda.  Just read 
  your papers.  The party platform Bush has is a bunch of 
  neo-conservatives.  Do you know what the neo-conservatives stand for 
  Judith?  Look up Project for a New American Century.
   
  Jonathan Hughes  
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:36 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
  for, and WHY?
  
  Just one more indication that you don't understand American politics 
  Jonathan.  Governors of Texas do not vote in the Senate. Also a platform 
  is a "party platform"  It is not a list of the man's personal preferences 
  as you are making it appear.  As I've pointed out already George W. is 
  not a "one man band" - You call Bush a war criminal for taking action against 
  terrorist groups who hate us and spend their time and energy plotting our 
  destruction?  Just where are you at Jonathan - this is way out 
  there?
   
  judyt
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:35:52 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
  

Quick 
correction.  Bush was a governor.  Kerry is the 
Senator.
 
J
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Jonathan 
HughesSent: Wednesday, 
September 22, 2004 9:26 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
for, and WHY?
 
Laugh out 
loud!
 
*breathes*
 
I also do not think 
Kerry will make a good president.  I don’t mind his running mate John 
Edwards though.  Kerry’s platform is remarkably similar to 
Bush’s.  On many of the points Terry made Bush is equally as guilty 
(Bush is not for firearms, Bush was a far worse Senator than Kerry [unless 
you were rich], Bush supports ‘civil unions’ between homosexuals just as 
Kerry does, neither will do a thing about abortion etc.  And the thing 
about Kerry’s men disliking him is just a plain lie.  The people that 
served under Kerry on his boat all support him – except for one since he is 
dead.  I owe this point to Bill O’Reilly.  The reason the other 
men do not like Kerry is that he was very anti-war and came back telling of 
its atrocities.  This did not go over well with the men who fought 
alongside him and fought valiantly.  Kerry screwed up there.)  It 
would come as no surprise to anyone on this forum that I believe Bush is a 
war criminal.  To remove him from office should the first concern of 
any Christian.  Tell a Muslim that George Bush is a Christian and then 
ask him to convert to Christ.  Would I take Kerry over Bush?  Yes, 
hands down.  Do I think Kerry will do well?  I doubt it.  
Both men will take America over the cliff, one a lot sooner than the 
other.
 
*breathes*
 
Jonathan
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 
8:59 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote 
for, and WHY?
 
In a message dated 9/22/2004 
5:50:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
It 
would take either a blithering idiot or the world's most gullible person to 
believe that this man could be a good senator, let alone a good 
president.  Al Sharpton looks good compared to Kerry.
TerryOn 
man !  Listen to me, Jonathan  --  "breathe in  
---  breathe out   --- breathe in   ---  
breathe out   
.."John
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.766 / Virus 
Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
 
  
  
  
  This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
  information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
  immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any 
  dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended 
  recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation 
  in connection with the above.Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents 
  s’y rattachant contiennen

Re: [TruthTalk] Dan Rather

[Judith H Taylor]

Jealousy and envy are sin Jonathan.  George W. had no control over who 
he was born to or what their station in life
might be.  As for preferential treatment in the National Guard.  
We were a military family for 20yrs and I didn't see any
of that.  Regardless, God is still on the throne and whatsoever a man 
sows, that shall he also reap.  Don't worry, he won't
get away with a thing.    judyt
 
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:28:30 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really think it is that easy Judy?  Use those 
  amazing research skills of yours and find out the actual facts.  Note 
  that the Bush administration is not arguing against these actual facts.  
  He did not fulfill his duty and got to where he was with preferential 
  treatment.  Nice silver spoon.
  Jonathan Hughes 
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
  TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:12 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
  Rather
  
  Bush was given an honorable discharge from the National Guard. He 
  fulfilled his enlistment.
  What is your problem Jonathan?  judyt
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:51:27 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
As a follow-up, the information contained in the memos 
is true.  Note how the Bush administration has not denied it.  The 
memos themselves are forged.  Can you see the 
difference?
Jonathan  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judith H 
TaylorSent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:00 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dan 
Rather


CBS has apologized and Rather is still sticking to his guns, there is 
something wrong with this picture but not much point
in arguing about it since noone knows what Rather knew or how/when he 
knew it.  It's just sad that he chooses to hold to the
lie when his story has been exposed already.  As for the WMD 
issue. The jury is still out on that one   It's good not to be 
part
of other men's sin.  
 
judyt
 
 
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:46:38 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

   
  Jonathan in blue.
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:24 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Dan Rather
  In a message dated 9/22/2004 5:30:34 AM 
  Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  Dan Rather, CBS News 
Anchor1) given documents he thought were true no evidence for this 
whatsoever Other than his own word.  You may 
dislike Rather (and I am probably in that crowd) but there is no reason 
to think that he is stupid.  To put out documents that he knew were 
false just to slander a president is highly unlike who Rather has shown 
himself to be.  Once again, he is not 
stupid.
  2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts within 3 hours of the release of these 
"documents,"  they were fully exposed as fake  -- proving that 
almost no investigation was necessary.   All other news 
agencies (NBC, Time for example) tuned done the initial offering out of 
hand.   They were not "fully exposed as fake" within 3 hours.  
Web logs (called blogs) called their authenticity into question within 3 
hours.  The proof was still being worked on.  As we all know 
the investigation has to be into why the fact-checking was not 
done.  Rather does the interviews and reads copy.  Don't 
confuse him with being the person who did the initial 
investigation.
  3) reported documents to the American people as true to make 
his case the only news anchor to do 
so Aye but not the only news agency/paper. 
 I believe it was first done in the Boston Globe.  It spread 
on the internet like wildfire.  Every news agency talked about 
it.
  4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched 
an investigation two weeks later and after being under intense 
pressur to do so   ..  his initial response was one of 
defiance. His 
initial response was that he thought they were true.  Interestingly 
enough the Bush administration has not denied the actual charges.  
The people who came forward to say that the documents were forged also 
came forward to say that the sentiment and the information behind the 
documents was true.  It matters not one whit that the documents 
were forged if the facts contained in them are true which certainly 
seems to be the case.  Contrast this with the Swift Boat 
crowd.  Their documents and their facts were both false.  

  5) number of Americans dead

Re: [TruthTalk] MY PRESIDENT

[Judith H Taylor]

So do we all Jonathan (need prayer that is); it is impossible to be
judging someone you are praying
for, so it is obvious you have yet to begin.  Are you as nit picking with
your own Prime Minister?  jt

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:57:23 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nice story.  Bogus garbage of course but nicely written.  Almost 
> feel
> touched.  I will agree with you on one thing:  Bush certainly needs
> prayer.
> 
> But stop the Bush is a godly man garbage.  www.bushrevealed.com 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Hughes
> 
> 
 -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> ShieldsFamily
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [TruthTalk] MY PRESIDENT
> 
> 
> 
> Subject: Our President
> 
> The man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, 
> and
> whose  happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in 
> college
> and an ill-fated oil venture. Who mangled syntax, and whose 
> speaking
> misstep became known as "Bushisms."
> 
> He came within a hair's breadth of losing the election in November.
> While votes were counted and re-counted, Bush quietly but 
> confidently
> waited at his  ranch.  Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, 
> but
> he stayed in the background, faithful and confident.  Bush named 
> Jesus
> Christ as Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference 
> to
> being "born-again" or having a "life change."  He actually said the
> un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ"!
> 
> On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by 
> Roosevelt,
> Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on 
> his
> shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul.  
> So
> President George OUROURW. Bush walked to his seat at the front of 
> the
> National Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive
> symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated.
> 
> When the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged 
> by
> friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in 
> that
> cathedral and  lifted a nation off its knees. In what was one of 
> the
> most impressive exhibitions of self-control in presidential 
> history,
> President George W. Bush  was able to deliver his remarks without 
> losing
> his resolve, focus, or confidence.  God's hand, which guided him 
> through
> that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him. As he walked 
> back to
> his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone 
> in
> the scene, alone in that massive place  of God; just him and the 
> Lord.
> 
> Back at his seat, George H. W. Bush reached over and took his son's
> hand.
> In that gesture his father seemed to say, "I wish I could do this 
> for
> you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own." Pres George 
> W.
> Bush squeezed back and gave him a look of peace that said, "I don't 
> have
> to do it alone, Dad. I've got help."
> 
> What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President. Please 
> take
> a moment after you read this to pray for him. He truly does have 
> the
> weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him 
> and
> give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Pray for his
> protection and that of his family.  
> 
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may
> know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email 
> to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a
> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify 
> the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and 
> destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by 
> a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may 
> be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the 
> above.
> 
> Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant 
> contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée.  Si 
> vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer 
> immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le 
> message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre).   Toute 
> diffusion ou utilisation  de cette information par une personne 
> autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être 
> illégale.  Merci de votre coopération relativement au message 
> susmentionné.
> --
> "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

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:26:26 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Lets look at this Judith.
   
  here is the main thrust of the 
  article:
   
  
  We believe 
  that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' budget and 
  tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their 
  foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest 
  countries? (Matthew 
  25:35-40, Isaiah 
  10:1-2) 
   
  The US is not a theocracy and 
  it's government is a secular government. I wonder if these "poorest countries" 
  would be so poor if they employed honest business practices. The reason many 
  of them can't lure business there is because they can't assure honest 
  practices and personal safety.
   
  We believe 
  that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' policies 
  protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 
  2:15, Psalm 
  24:1)
   
  God is well able to take care of 
  His own Creation. Did he give Israel (the apple of His eye) a mandate to 
  take care of His business?  No!! Neither did he instruct the Church of 
  the Lord Jesus Christ this way, so who is the authority making it the 
  responsibility of the USA?
   
  We believe 
  that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' policies 
  pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in 
  responding to real global threats? (Matthew 
  5:9) 
   
  Peace through strength is also 
  PEACE and this is why God advocates spanking to keep the peace in homes with 
  unruly children.  God has instructed Israel to go to war at different 
  times.  Peace at any price is not His way and the Sermon on the Mount is 
  not "instruction to Nations" We are instructed to pray for our leaders and 
  trust God to work in and through them.
   
  We believe 
  that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates 
  tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? 
  (John 
  8:32)
   
  The writers of this article 
  should start with themselves.  There was just one perfect man known as 
  The Truth...
   
  We believe 
  that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a 
  religious issue. How do the candidates propose 
  to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of 
  Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 
  1:27) 
   
  Next thing they will be seeing 
  "the image of God" in the Al Queda terrorists. This is foolish 
  talk.
   
  We believe 
  that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do 
  the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on 
  terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates 
  see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 
  6:33, Proverbs 
  8:12-13 ) 
   
  Glad for these people to have 
  their beliefs but they should inflict them on the rest of us, or try to 
  justify them by
  quoting scripture out of 
  context.
   
  We believe 
  that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious 
  issue. Do the candidates' positions on 
  abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, 
  HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical 
  injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 
  30:19)
   
  Choosing life is an individual 
  responsibility and I don't believe the authors of this list understand what 
  this means. It's conditional - the diseases of Egypt are witheld to those who 
  keep God's statutes and laws. This is what it means to "Choose 
  Life"
   
  Demonstrate to me scripturaly that God does not care about the poor, 
  the environment, peacemaking, truth-telling, human rights (respecting the 
  image of God in every person - remember Izzy could care less about this), how 
  one responds to calamity (terrorism) and abortion.  You may not like the 
  scriptures sojo.net used.  You could find dozens more for each of these 
  issues.  Which one do you think God doesn't care about?  How can you 
  honestly call yourself a Bible believing Christian and disagree with the 
  points above?  And you think I am out in left 
  field
   
  God 
  cares about all of them Jonathan but He has already given us The Way and 
  instruction is contained in His Word. These people are no more interested in 
  "the Way of Truth" than you appear to be. They are merely using references 
  from God's Word to make a political statement which is very sad  
  judyt
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:19:15 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Jonathan in green.
   
  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:09:16 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Judy,
 
As usual, when pressed you run into the corner and 
hide.  You have responded to a number of emails with a number of 
paragraphs.  You have the time to respond.  Use it.  You 
obviously connect at least once an hour.  You can at least read the 
Bible verses in your own Bible and comment how you think each candidate does 
in light of each issue.  Once again, why does it matter what Bush 
thinks about abortion if he will never do anything about 
it?
 
jt: Make up your mind Jonathan, in one paragraph you 
claim I am connecting at least once an hour (which is untrue) and that I am 
off in a corner hiding which is (also untrue).
Oooohhh you almost make 
me look doubleminded.  Silly game Judith.  The reality is that you 
connect a few times during the day, write a number of paragraphs and 
definitely have the time to check out a few of your 
'stories'.
 
judyt: Jonathan is 
this a good example of how you collect facts or what? There is 
more assumption than truth involved here, you never ask about a person's 
situation; you appear to assume a lot without any foundation in 
truth.  My husband and I have been on the road for 2 weeks now in a 
26ft trailer. I have no reference books with me because they are heavy and 
there is no room.  We download email when we can, for the past few days 
we were at his brother's place but for me to hang up their one phone 
line all day searching out websites that denigrate the President and messing 
with email would be s rude.
 
You think Bush took a stand on 9/11?  How 
ridiculous.  You are now involved in your own Vietnam against a country 
that had nothing to do with the terrorism.  
 
jt: These terrorists were 
supported by and trained in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Since you know 
so much about everything Jonathan, why arn't you up for election? 
 
Prove that the 
terrorists that were involved in 9/11 were supported by Iraq.  Umm your 
own commission denies this.  Afghanistan yes.  However now the 
Taliban are more powerful than ever and the drug trade is extremely 
strong.  I don't see you attacking Pakistan; they are your 
'friends'.  15 of the 19 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia.  
Attacking them anytime soon?
 
judyt: I'm not employed 
by the CIA or Homeland Security Jonathan so I don't have access to the kind 
of proof you demand.
However, I've seen 
enough responsible people who represent our Government stating as 
much.  As for who is friends with who.
These terrorists are not 
friends to anybody.  Be not deceived, you could be 
next.
 
Your troops are dying left right and center.  Your 
debt is skyrocketing, your poor getting poorer and your rich richer.  
Nice stand.  In actual fact Bush sat there and read My Pet Goat for 7 
minutes.
 
jt: How sad and the Canadians and the French are 
standing in line waiting to help us out
 
Ahh yes we should 
participate in going against our conscience (a biblical sin of course) and 
kill those we do not think need killing.  If Bush says it is true God 
must be saying it too.
 
judyt: No Jonathan, 
just continue to sit in the seat of the scornful and wait your turn... 
because it will surely come.
 
Why do I care what happens in America?  That is a 
stupid question.  Why would I not care about what the world's only 
superpower is doing?  The country that shares a massive border with 
me?  The country that directly affects much of what happens in my own 
country politically and economically?
 
jt: Wouldn't you be better off talking to God about it 
rather than fearing what happens in the US since He is the ONLY ONE who has 
the power and authority to sustain your country both politically and 
economically with or without the support of the USA?
 
It may surprise you that 
God wants us to use the brains he gave us to be stewards of his creation and 
to participate in governing it.  To not acknowledge the influence of 
the US on my country is ludicrous.
 
judyt: What God wants is 
for your mind/brain to be sanctified by washing it in the water of His Word 
because only then will you be able to understand His ways and be qualified 
to discern between good and evil
 
I sent you the link to Kerry's Senate voting record on 
abortion.  If you care, find time to read it.  Since it matters to 
you so much that Bush is quasi anti-abortion I would think it would matter 
to you what Kerry actually thinks.
 
jt: Jonathan 

Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party

[Judith H Taylor]

Jonathan this fellow gives no concrete facts, it's all theory and 
speculation. I didn't hear the conversation with Hannity and neither did you so 
are we to take his 3rd party report which would be considered heresy in a court 
of law and begin to join in and entertain his suspicions because of it?  I 
think there is some kind of Pollyanna mindset out there with expectations too 
high and lofty to ever be fulfilled in this lifetime. We need to get a grip and 
remember that George W. inherited a political mess. Unless he is an out and out 
liar - he is doing the best he can with what he has to work with and since we do 
not have the same facts he has in front of us we are fools to think we can be 
his judges.
 
The "party" spirit is ungodly (no matter what party) and both Congress 
and Senate are full of "mixture"; neither candidate or any alternate is perfect. 
I don't like what I hear coming from Kerry's own mouth. I understand that George 
W. does not have "all wisdom" and is not walking in "all knowledge" but I do 
believe he has made a sincere committment to the same Lord and Savior as 
me.  There is no way he can please everyone but I am willing to trust the 
Lord to work through him for our good and for the good of the 
Nation.    judyt
 
 
 
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:57:17 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Wow.  This article blew me away.  The more 
  I research the more of these Christians I am finding.  Where were they 
  hiding?
   
  
  Why George W. Bush Frightens Me
  John M. 
  Leone
  INTRODUCTION
  I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. At 26 years old, I 
  considered myself a political “conservative.”  I had begun to follow and 
  study national politics around 1998.  The more I read and studied, the 
  further I drifted away from my previous “liberal” beliefs.  I had begun 
  to look at Democrats with revulsion and thought to myself, “How could any sane 
  and moral person who is paying attention vote for a Democrat?”  I had 
  truly bought into the charade that there was a legitimate difference between 
  the two major political parties in America.
  I was dead wrong.
  Over the last few years since George W. Bush has taken 
  office, I have continued my drift to the right, which began around 1998, and 
  become more conservative in my political and religious thinking.  The 
  more years that go by, the less tolerance I have for compromise on the 
  important issues of our time.  As I have continued my study of American 
  history and politics, I have had to unwind my tangled brain from the spin and 
  lies I was taught and re-string it with truth and reality.  
  The realization that our great nation has undertaken a 
  massive defection from our constitutional underpinnings was one that I did not 
  welcome easily.  I didn’t want to listen to the arguments from the 
  third-party wackos about how we had slid into socialism years ago and that the 
  only way out was to abandon the two-party system wholesale.  I was 
  intellectually dishonest and did my best to shield myself from arguments 
  wielded by traditional conservatives, or “paleo-conservatives.”  
  From listening to and reading Rush Limbaugh and Sean 
  Hannity, I had all the party-line arguments against “liberalism” down 
  pat.  But I just didn’t know what to say to the paleo-conservatives in 
  response to their arguments against neo-conservatism.  I thought many of 
  their criticisms were entirely legitimate, but figured that these guys were 
  living on the fringes of American politics and that I could safely ignore 
  their wailings about a “tyrannical” government and the continuing 
  “restrictions” of our freedoms.  
  One night in early 2003, I was listening to Hannity’s radio 
  show.  A man called in and began to rattle off facts, figures, and moral 
  positions that clearly identified him as a “conservative.”  Judging by 
  what the man was saying, I guessed that he would be well received by Hannity 
  and that the call would go well.  Then the man began to say that there 
  was no real difference between the two political parties and that Bush, by his 
  actions, had proven that he was every bit as “liberal” as those who Hannity 
  regularly bashed on his show every day.  Just as the man began to talk 
  about the “socialists” who run our government, Hannity shut him down by 
  yelling at him, then terminated the phone call while the man was in 
  mid-sentence.  Hannity called the man a lunatic, or something similar, 
  and quickly went to another caller without addressing even one of the points 
  raised by the man who had been hung-up on.
  I remember thinking to myself, “What in the world was that 
  caller thinking? Bush is a conservative.”  But this radio incident 
  tickled my brain for weeks and months as I began to seriously doubt, by 
  observing his behavior, that Bush was a conservative.  I wondered why 
  Hannity, who by his own admission prides himself on “intellectual honesty

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

I don't have a concordance with me so I can't give the scriptural reference 
but God does promise his people that they will live in "peaceful dwelling 
places" with no fear that harm will befall them. I hardly see this 
as akin to living in the path of one of these deadly storms. Didn't Jesus 
admonish the disciples for being full of fear when he slept and they trembled 
during the storm on the sea of Galillee? If God sent that storm surely 
Jesus wouldn't have thwarted His Will by commanding "Peace, be still!" 
since he always did and said what he first saw the Father do and say during His 
earthly ministry.  I'm not sure I am where Michael is, but I appreciate him 
in the Lord and I know passivity and unbelief are not the answer. What is a 
"contingent universe" (don't have a dictionary here either)?
 
We are meeting people fleeing these storms everywhere in our travels. Today 
we are in Buffalo TX and the camper next to us is people who live in Tallahassee 
FLA.  In Arkansas the Campgrounds were full all the way up to Little 
Rock.  To me this gives new meaning to the idea that in the end times men's 
hearts will fail them for fear.  It is escalating.  Grace and 
Peace,  judyt
 
 
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:19:39 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Hi Michael,
   
  Not that John needs me to defend him in any way but you 
  are constructing your theology from one experience Jesus had with his 
  disciples.  I would suggest you re-read the story and ask yourself if the 
  story is really about Jesus dissolving storms or if perhaps the story is 
  narrated to us for a different purpose.  To assert that John is a 
  fatalist and actually question whether he is a believer (by the question marks 
  you pose after his signature) is ridiculous.  I understand that you are 
  passionate about the topic and desire to see people saved from these dreadful 
  storms.  That is all something we on this forum can see and honor you 
  for.  What becomes a problem is when you create a theology (read 
  mythology) behind it.  When Jesus prays "thy kingdom come' you imply that 
  He is referring to God stopping storms.  This is your definition of what 
  the Kingdom would be like.  When God tells the Israelites that He 'will 
  heal their land' you imply that this means God will stop storms from 
  assaulting us.  This is your definition of a healed land.  To 
  imagine that this is what the writers were actually referring to is almost 
  laughable.  In a way you have us all by the neck.  You can ask if we 
  believe God can do things.  All of us will answer yes of course He 
  can.  Then you jump to, well than if we pray enough He will.  
  If we don't pray the way you do it is implied that we are guilty of not 
  agreeing with God and scripture.  The argument you make is tough for 
  people to get their heads around.  It sounds so simple and very matter of 
  factly puts one group in the believers side and the other to the non-believers 
  side.  Who wouldn't want to be on the believers side?  Terry and 
  John are both believers that hold to the word of God.  They believe (as 
  do I) that God created a contingent universe.
   
  Jonathan Hughes 
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael 
  douglasSent: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:00 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the 
  Storm
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  In a message dated 9/26/2004 3:20:45 PM Pacific Daylight 
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you believe, John? Does God, or does He not, have 
  that power (to dissolve storms)? 
Yesshould Believers pray for God to do that? 
No.  
We already have a promise from God relating to our 
circumstances.  Rom 8:28.  
Michael D: You've got to be kidding!!! (to use 
an americanism). You've got to be!!! What kind of fatalist are you? What God 
are you serving? When Jesus' own disciples failed to exercise their faith in 
the face of adverse weather conditions, He did not say chill out fellas, we 
will ride this storm out. He rebuked the storms and then rebuked them for 
their unbelief. Both things rebuked were adverse to their well-being, so He 
rebuked them both. 
You really '...have not because you ask 
not...' This apathy also betrays a lack of appreciation for the way the god 
of this world prevails upon all that is natural in this realm if we allow 
him. Jesus said what you allow on earth, is allowed in heaven, and what you 
forbid on earth is forbidden in heaven. Earth is man's responsibility. If 
you chose to get God involved, He is eager to be. If you chose not to, but 
leave things to happenstance (which is really, enemy stance) then He will 
let you. Those who belong to Jesus are His Body. We are his hands and feet 
etc. If His body does not act, then His hands are tied. Can you  
understand that??? That's His greatest p

Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party

[Judith H Taylor]

The  jury is still out on who is and who isn't saved John; the Lord 
determines that when he separates the sheep from
the goats.  Actually God in his grace and mercy gives us all a measure 
of time to "get it right"  We may all begin as "pathetic losers"
but this should not be the confession of those who are in 
Christ.
 
Grace and Peace,
judyt
 
 
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:00:47 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/27/2004 2:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I believe 
that God can use a believer or a non-believer.  I think the Biblical 
record supports this assertion.And that is to His glory.   
  How is it that each of us are saved in spite of just how wrong we are?  
  And what is the hope of unity in view of such great division.   It 
  all has to do with the miracle of God.  If God can make an assemble of 
  pathetic losers a "church,'"  He can do anything.  
  JOhn 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

jt:  Notice I use the word "appear" John. I am not intentionally rude 
but I do have to be honest, you
may be more sensitive because you are on the verge of or 
have already embraced the same doctrine as
Jonathan is involved with which doctrine so far as I can tell erases each 
and every condition from scripture.
 
 
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:35:01 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/27/2004 5:15:00 PM Pacific Daylight 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  These 
people are no more interested in "the Way of Truth" than you appear to 
  be.What is it with the women, all of a sudden.  Not only 
  rude to the max but sinfully in error.  John 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:37:50 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
I am very glad that G asked you to clarify what I had sent.  You are not
on track at all.  The watchmaker and clock concept is pure deism.  That
of a Creator who creates and then steps back out of reach of His
creation.  His creation then runs self-sufficiently apart from the
Creator.  There is no continuing relation between the watchmaker and the
clock.  What you missed in my definition of divine and contingent order
is that creation is 'upheld by its Creator' and that it 'relies upon
Jesus Christ in Whom all things move and have their being.'  

jt: Now you are sounding like the Oneness or "Jesus Only" people
Jonathan...

It is a world that has all the ability to exist without direct
intervention by God but is also in a relationship with its Creator Who
sustains it.  In this relationship God can at any time intervene.

jt: The above is a little on the pantheistic side, are you saying a
transcendent Spirit is in relationship with His Creation ie the Universe?

Who is the Jesus that Lance, Baxter and I follow?  He is the eternal Son
of God who before the foundation of the world adopted us to be part of 
 the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.  

jt: God is ONE Jonathan and where is the above action described in
scripture? I know Jesus is the Lamb who was slain before the foundation
of the world so there could be a people called The Church who are found
"in Him" at the end but Father, Son, and Spirit are hardly three people
who need to work on relationship.

Against the lie of separation that Satan administered in the Fall, Jesus
clothed Himself with our humanity, cleansed it from within, was killed
and rose from the dead to His Father with us carefully held in His hands.
 He now sits at the right hand of His Father continually interceding for
us.

jt: The above scenario is a figment of someone's vivid imagination
Jonathan, and what you call "the lie of separation" is our present day
reality. In fact the majority of the populace are living with a breach
between themselves and God, themselves and others, themselves with
themselves. There is little or no real peace in this world in case you've
not noticed recently.

We in turn participate in what He did for us.

jt: How do we participate Jonathan?  From what you write it would appear
that all we have to do is "show up"

In another email you asked me what is an overcomer.  The only overcomer
is Jesus Christ.  In all that He overcomes, we overcome.  I never 
 overcome anything that He does not overcome first.  An overcomer is one
who trusts in the work and person of Jesus Christ.

jt: So we don't have any responsibility at all?  It's ALL Him?  We don't
need any works, we just trust in His works? What if we are trusting in
the lie?   judyt




> 
> Jonathan
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm
> 
> 
> Hi G: 
> Jonathan wrote: A contingent universe is one that is based upon and 
> upheld
> by its Creator.  It is created to run self-sufficiently but relies 
> upon
> Jesus Christ in whom all things move and have their being.
> 
> jt: I understand what he describes as something akin to the 
> watchmaker and
> clock concept that came from "enlightenment thinking" ie "running
> self-sufficiently" I've never been able to figure out which Jesus 
> Jonathan,
> Lance, and Baxter Kruger follow but I don't believe He is the same 
> as the
> one I know.
> 
> judyt
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>  
> 
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:04:34 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  My passion is good.  My anger mixed with passion is 
  where I fail.  When I begin to judge those that disagree with 
  me.
   
  I 
  like what you say below.  Jesus was only intolerant of those that 
  projected the wrong perception of His Father.  Try to get in the way of 
  adoption and Christ was gonna get angry real quick.
   
  jt: 
  Adoption had nothing to do with anything Jonathan.  Jesus was angry with 
  the Pharisees because they claimed to see when they were spiritually 
  blind. They were hypocrites who said one thing and did another and this is why 
  their sin remained. IOW they were deceived themselves and busy deceiving 
  others.  Blind guides of the blind.  
   
  The 
  Father, 'while we were still sinners' longs to embrace us and share His 
  holiness with us.  Holiness is not a stainless steel box that we call 
  purity.  Holiness is a relational term (think holy, holy, holy in 
  Revelation) that describes the pure relationship of the Father, Son and 
  Spirit.  When we make it a legal term we fall into 
  trouble.
   
  jt:; 
  Holiness is a state of being which does not come by osmosis and sanctification 
  does not just fall on anyone. Salvation is something that is to be worked out 
  - "with fear and trembling"
   
  judyt
   
  
  

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:41 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party
  In a message dated 9/28/2004 7:21:03 AM Pacific 
  Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  It was 
the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law that got so mad at Jesus for hanging 
out with the 'pathetic losers' (read sinners).  I am proud to be part 
of that group.Jonathan Hughes 
  Absolutely.   
  At the point in time when we consider ourselves different from the 
  others in terms of holiness and spiritual thought, we will cease to be a part 
  of their world.   A separation will begin   --- an 
  expanding gulf will insue and separation between us and them will evolve to 
  the point that we cannot and will not help "them."   We will move 
  into boxes called church buildings.   As the expanding gulf widens, 
  those in one box will throw stones at those in the other boxes  --  
  the world be damned.  In the end, we become so irrelevant that, when the 
  box burns down, we have nothing left  --   not even a place 
  along side the others.   If I am just like you, but with 
  different problems, if I have a Father who accepts me just as I am and will 
  ever be while offering to help me into the Next Opportunity , I will be 
  disposed to share that Father with you, knowing that He is your Father as 
  well.   I must never forget that I am a part of the God's 
  plan of salvation in terms of my witness to that event.   And the 
  witness that counts is the witness that I live out each and every day.  
  By the way, Jonathan, my oldest son (37 years), has the very same 
  ideas you do when it comes to this election. and the same 
  passion.    It has made for some very spirited 
  discussions.   He is the one kid (out of five) that actually thinks 
  he is a match for his old man.   But I love him anyway.  
  a brother,John
  
  
  
  This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
  information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
  immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any 
  dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended 
  recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation 
  in connection with the above.Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents 
  s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si 
  vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son 
  expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie 
  (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information 
  par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être 
  illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. 
  
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Eye of the Storm

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:59:46 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  Evening Judy,
   
  I won't push you on the first paragraph as it matters 
  little to me that you missed my point.
   
  The second paragraph contains perhaps one sentence 
  that sums up your theology.  It is to that sentence that I will address 
  this email.  The sentence is "Jesus was the Lord and he came for one purpose and one 
  purpose only which was to die." If your theology 
  begins with the Fall where man appears to become separated from God you are 
  left with a Jesus who must die to restore that separation.  I would 
  implore you to start where God starts: before the foundation of the world the 
  Godhead made a decision.  They would include humanity in their plans and 
  within their relationship.  Adoption was the plan from the 
  beginning.  Jesus did not come to die.  Jesus came to clothe Himself 
  with our humanity, to cleanse it from all impurity and to present it to His 
  Father as a Holy sacrifice.  Jesus came that we might 
  live.
   
  judyt: Then why the Levitical system and why the 
  slaughter of so many lambs, bulls, and goats. You completely misunderstand the 
  significance of the fall and the meaning of sin and separation Jonathan. Just 
  because you have found yourself a truncated gospel does not mean that God will 
  accept same. He is the one who defines holiness and sin, and he is the 
  one who decided who does and who does not get into His 
  presence.
   
  Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us 
  and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.  
  His unchanging plan 
  has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself 
  through Jesus Christ.  And this gave him great pleasure. 
  (Ephesians 1:4-5)  No wonder Paul breaks out into praise in verse 
  6!
   
  judyt: Do I hear presumption Jonathan?  God 
  loved and chose "a people in Christ" to be holy and blameless before Him. 
  Whether you and I are part of this group depends on how seriously we receive 
  His Word and whether or not we become doers of same or hearers only - 
  deceiving ourselves.
   
  Regarding the magic that you call scriptural in your 
  reading of Deut 28 and 29.  You are confusing 
  convenants.
   
  judyt: His laws and statutes apply to all 
  covenants and every generation.  His standards do not change any 
  more than He changes.  
   
  Walking in the Spirit (the new covenant) does lead to 
  blessing; it may also lead to a tonne of strife.  Read Paul’s life in 
  Acts.  He walked according to the Spirit and for some reason his herds 
  did not increase.
   
  judyt: He didn't have any herds that I know of, Paul 
  was a tentmaker. Was he ever hungry or out on the street begging?  In his 
  case Jesus said he would show him what he must suffer for His names' 
  sake. Could be he was reaping some of what he sowed when he persecuted the 
  Church and killed God's people.  
   
  But he counted it all gain to suffer for Christ.  
  Read Jesus’ life who walked in the Spirit each and every moment of His 
  life.
   
  judyt: Jesus came to defeat the powers of darkness, 
  they hated him but could do nothing to stop him.  His enemies were 
  not flesh and blood and neither are ours.  
   
  The blessing that Paul refers to is not the blessing 
  you refer to in Deuteronomy which was a blessing offered (and scorned) to 
  Israel for obedience.  Reading the list of blessings in Deuteronomy one 
  must ask who wouldn’t want them! 
   
  judyt: Deuteronomy as I've said already is God's Word 
  to His people in every generation and obedience is the requirement for 
  blessing in every generation.  Israel did not scorn God or His Word 
  intentionally, they were deceived in losing sight of what was 
  important. 
   
   
  Unfortunately they lack relationship.  It is this 
  walking in the Spirit, this continual relationship with the Son of God that 
  brings about blessing, not accordance to levitical law.  
  
   
  judyt: I understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of 
  the Levitical Law Jonathan but the blessings and curses are aside from that. 
  Jesus says "If you love me you will do what I say" which to me is the same 
  kind of obedience.
   
  Note that the blessing this brings about is far 
  different than the ‘increase the size of my herds, keep storms away from my 
  loft’ type.  Don’t accept the foreshadowing of God’s blessing for the 
  real blessing He offers in His Son.
   
  judyt: Being blessed going in and blessed going out, 
  being blessed in the city and blessed in the field is all encompassing.  
  I don't see any reason for the blessing to be limited to an 
  agragarian culture.  As for the curse?  No doubt about that because 
  we are wearing it.
   
  judyt
   
  
   
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:19 

Re: [TruthTalk] Who to Vote for, and WHY?

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:38:23 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/29/2004 5:40:37 AM Pacific Daylight 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  jt:  Notice I use the word "appear" John. I am not 
intentionally rude but I do have to be honest, youmay be more sensitive 
because you are on the verge of or have already embraced the same doctrine 
asJonathan is involved with which doctrine so far as I can tell erases 
each and every condition from scripture.
  All right but I still do not see how such comments lend 
  themselves to the discussion.   It seems to me that such speech 
  actually closes the door to meaningful exchange.  Regarding my perceived 
  "sensitivity," I can say this:  I am not a sensitive type when it comes 
  to open discussion.   Until I left the Church of Christ, my brethren 
  would track me down, search me out and then kick me out.   I was 
  disfellowshipped twice and disallowed graduation from their version of 
  "seminary."   On one occasion, I preached in one town and was 
  disfellowshipped by a church in another town  --  fifty miles 
  away!!  Did not attend that church.   Letters were written to 
  every other congregation in the valley and I was "fired" by my home boys but 
  with great regret  (they were afraid of the other churches.) I have 
  gotten used to hate speech and "rejection"  and it continues to some 
  degree even here on TT (and I am not referencing you in that comment.)  
  So much for the battles with the truly redeemed.  
   
  judyt: I'm sorry to hear of the above John; apparently the Church of 
  Christ is not long on love but this is true for many of today's 
  denominations.  I've left churches and never had anyone to call and see 
  if anything was wrong so I'm not surprised - sadlyI would be 
  interested in Jonathan's approach to the conditional passages of the 
  Message.  This was the big question I gave to Kruger via Lance when he 
  was up this past weekend.
   
  judyt: I'm interested in the answer to that question 
  also...But,  Jonathan's most recent post  comparing your 
  view with his regarding the Christ is something that I do agree with.  
  Christ died for the world.   The gift in John 3:16 is not eternal 
  life.  Rather, it is the Son.  
   
  judyt: He died so that we might live and God's love for the world was the 
  reason He came to die.  However the gift is "eternal life" and salvation 
  is "being saved from the wrath of God" which still stands against all 
  ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.
   
  I believe that conditional phrases, if obeyed, do two things:  they 
  continue our walk with God and they give us markers that engender 
  confidence.   How many times does John speak of confidence as he 
  writes his first epistle?
   
  judyt: Conditions are the difference between life and/or death. God's 
  salvation is on His terms not ours and the disagreement here is about what 
  these terms involve.The parable of the prodigal has no meaning if it 
  is not giving illustration to the notion that we are all family members.  
  As such, we have choices to make.   But God is the father and the 
  skid row junkie is my brother.   If you believe that, you are 
  compelled to save your brother, knowing and believing that your Father yearns 
  for The Return.   I have waxed eloquent before with this parable and 
  the response was a negative one.  But the fact remains that the prodigal 
  parable gives us the overview of God and the world.  If not, why 
  not.
   
  judyt: You and I can save noone John.  The best we can do is speak 
  when the Holy Spirit says speak.  As for the Prodigal Son. I've always 
  noticed that noone chased him into the pigpen or tried to persuade him to come 
  out - He went in by his own volition and came out through his own 
  choice.  The Father rejoiced when he made the decision wherein he 
  could receive blessing rather than the curses of poverty and eating with 
  pigs.judytJohn 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Incarnational/Trinitarian Theology

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:49:56 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  1)  Always remember the unassumed is the 
  unhealed:  I believe that Christ Who inhabited a human body 
  cleansed it from all impurity in His daily walk with the Spirit.  I 
  believe this includes our sinful nature.  The only way Jesus can give us 
  full healing is if He fully heals us.  If He healed us without touching 
  our sinful nature we would still be sick.  This is the new creation Paul 
  speaks of.  We can live according to our sinful nature (Paul speaks of it 
  as the flesh) or we can embrace what Christ healed and live by the 
  Spirit.  If there is any part of us that has not been taken up in Christ 
  and made new we are lost.  If Jesus only became partly human and did not 
  face life as we face it He cannot truly represent us.  What I am saying 
  is that God's salvation does not leave anything out; it is full, rich, and 
  complete.
   
  judyt: If your last sentence is true Jonathan - that is 
  "God's salvation does not leave anything out and is full, rich, and complete" 
  then why is there so much physical sickness in those professing godliness in 
  Him?  We are still sick, many with sicknesses unto death. 
  Howso?
   
  2)  Your question is: If Jesus took on himself ALL, why are some few saved and 
  many lost? ( I agree that He died for all that would receive Him, but His 
  sacrifice was wasted by most).  I 
  think we need to redefine what we mean by salvation in light of who Jesus 
  Christ has disclosed Himself as being.  Most of us start with the 
  passages that seem to imply that few are saved instead of starting with the 
  One who does the saving, our Savior. 
   
  judyt: We could start with the words of Our Savior 
  Himself who said "strait is the gate and narrow is the way and only a few will 
  find it:" He also said "many are called but only a few are chosen"  My 
  paraphrase since I don't have a Concordance handy, but I'm sure you will get 
  the point.
   
  I am suggesting a radical way of interpreting these type of 
  texts: Begin with who Jesus is and work out our doctrines and proof passages 
  from there.  (By the way this is why we all still love Judy, Izzy 
  and myself.  We begin with who we know they are in Christ, not with the 
  attitudes expressed in their/my posts.  We know how valuable we are in 
  Christ and when it all comes down to it that is what is 
  important).
   
  judyt: We see even this so differently. I would say that 
  loving the unlovely (behavior of some) is a point of obedience. We are to love 
  because he first loved us.  We should also separate both ourselves and 
  others from this type of behavior.with the understanding that we (all of us) 
  are all works in progress rather than a complete statement 
  ...
   
  When we say the name Jesus Christ we are saying God and 
  we are saying humanity and we are saying God and humanity 
  together.  Christ says that He came to take away the sin of 
  the world.  I take Him at His word on this.  I start with His stated 
  purpose in Ephesians chapter one - to adopt us. 
  In the garden of Eden the most terrible thing 
  occurred.  Satan convinced Adam and Eve that they were separated from 
  God.
   
  judyt: Where did he do this?  In my Bible he 
  deceived Eve into disobeying the clear Word of God and Adam followed suit by 
  his own choice. Eating from the wrong tree is what separated them from God and 
  the fact that mankind is still separated today is no lie in 
  fact understanding this is the first step to receiving the Good 
  News.  
   
  All of a sudden we had a huge chasm between God and 
  us.  Now somehow we needed to convince and appease God to accept 
  us.  The God of love who created us now was the God of hate who couldn't 
  stand to even look at us.  We had become despicable to God, unacceptable 
  in His sight.  These lies have been with us ever 
  since.
   
  judyt: Amazing Jonathan - You have a whole 
  "other" doctrine. God has never changed but He can not deny who He is and 
  He will not violate His Own Word. Since first Eve and then Adam chose to 
  eat from the other tree, God went along with their choice but they 
  couldn't have both ATST.  Neither can we walk with God while ATST 
  holding hands with the devil - we must choose this day whom we will 
  serve.  
   
  Most people ignore the fact that God came down to earth 
  after the Fall and clothed Adam and Eve.  He was fully able to spend time 
  with sinners.  He was fully able to love and care for them, to accept 
  them.
   
  judyt: Where do you get this from Jonathan?  Yes he 
  clothed them, he had to kill the first animal to do so but there was no 
  walking with them and fellowshipping in the cool of the day and they were 
  driven from the garden under a curse ..   
   
  Jesus continued this scandalous behavior when He hung out 
  with sinners.  We have a concept in our mind that is completely 

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:55:41 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/29/2004 3:58:21 PM Pacific Daylight 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Isaiah 59:2 - But your iniquities have made a separation 
  between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that 
  He does not hear.jt: Thanks IzzyThis is the scripture I was 
  thinking of and it proves that iniquity and sin preclude any kind of 
  fellowship and/or relationship with the Living God no matter what Jonathan, 
  Lance, and Kruger proclaim to the contrary.John writes: Not even close 
  on this one, Judy.   More proof-texting theology.  Isa 59:2 has 
  nothing to do with our present day situation.   I am even startled 
  to see this comment.    It is so wrong as to be almost 
  humorous.   This is nothing but the doctrine of 
  perfectionism   It goes against  a whole host of biblical 
  comment and denies not only the purpose of the cross but the stated need for 
  the continual flow of the blood of the Lamb.    It offers no 
  hope for those who come to the Lord trapped (in an addictive sense) in their 
  sin.  Your conclusion is not true. John 
   
  jt: Proof texting theology?  You've got to be 
  kidding John. This verse speaks for itself. The prophet is addressing the 
  Covenant people of the God who changes not.  Today we are His Covenant 
  people through Christ (who holds the Covenant) so what makes you think your 
  iniquities and sin are different from theirs? Don't let your humor put you in 
  a ditch. I suspect that most of the whole host of biblical comment you refer 
  to is void of the "if's, and's and but's" (read conditions).  The blood 
  is effective to cleanse the conscience ONLY when we go to the throne of grace 
  in time of need. What would make you think my belief offers no hope for 
  addictions? I'm the one who just spent a week in GA learning about "the more 
  excellent way"  You may call it "the doctrine of perfectionism" John and 
  I know you equate this with legalism.  However, God does say "Be ye holy 
  or perfect as I am holy" we are to go on into maturity and dealing with sin is 
  not an option.  Nor is cutting Isa 59:2 out of your Bible and/or negating 
  it by false doctrine.
   
  judyt
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:14:13 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy has said that one has absolutely no kind 
  of relationship with God until and unless he is perfectly able to  
  practice God's commandments against sin.   
   
  jt: When did Judy say the above John?  I've 
  never said those words, these are your words, it is what you THINK I am saying 
  and has nothing to do with what I believe or what I have actually 
  stated.
   
  Is it true that our sins and iniquities 
  separate us from God using Isa 59:2 as a reference?   
  
   
  jt: Yes it is true that our sin and iniquity 
  separates us from God..
   
  Well,  we are told that God accepts faith 
  as righteousness (Romans 4).  And why would that be?  If there is no 
  sin or iniquity of any sort in our lives, we are righteous and have no need 
  for the exchange of faith for righteousness.   If we say that we 
  have no sin, we deceive even ourselves (I JO 1:8)  We have sinned and 
  continue to fall short of the Glory (Rom 3:23.)  
   
  jt: Since you are using faith to negate Isaiah 
  59:2 shouldn't we ask ourselves what faith is and what it's focus should 
  be?  Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness - 
  but true faith always has corresponding action.  Abraham packed up and 
  left Ur of the Chaldees not knowing where he was heading in obedience to the 
  Word of God.  I don't argue that we are all sinners in need of mercy and 
  grace at the start or that we continue to fall short of the glory of 
  God.  Where we differ seems to be in the area of the obedience that is 
  the fruit of real faith.
   
  So, what of Isa 59:2?  Ask youself 
  this:  does this passage exclude the necessity for a continuing sin 
  sacrifice as defined by the Law?   I say no.  So sin continues, 
  does it not?
   
  jt: Isa 59:2 says nothing one way or the other 
  about sacrifice. This is your CofC teaching speaking to you.  Isaiah is 
  speaking to a covenant people who are lawless and covenant breakers for 
  the reasons given in Vs.3 "their hands are defiled with blood, their fingers 
  with iniquity, their lips have spoken lies and their tongues have muttered 
  perverseness.  None called for justice or pleaded for truth; they trusted 
  in vanity and spoke lies, they conceived mischief and brought forth 
  iniquity."  It's possible to make the sacrifice and not be 
  able
  to receive the blessing... just as it is 
  possible to proclaim Christ and by one's deeds deny Him.   
  
   
  Isa 59:2 in light of the continuing need for 
  sin sacrifice is speaking of an action on the part of the individuals 
  involved, not of God's decision to exclude them.
   
  jt: Sin is deceitful John and we are the ones 
  deceived.  God will have no part with it and this is why He had to hide 
  his face from His own son when He bare our sin on the cross.   
  
   
  I fight or resist the sin issues I have in my 
  life. If or when I decide to give in to them, to go my own way and revel in my 
  sin, my sins and iniquities have separated me from my God.  Romans 
  7:14-25 and Eph 4:14-24  paint a clear picture of one who struggles  
  in a binary reality  -  two natures existing at the same time and 
  influencing each other.   To say that we have no relationship of any 
  kind with God because of sin and iniquity is wrong.  
   
  jt: I never said "No relationship OF ANY 
  KIND"  I have stated over and over and over that salvation is a walk of 
  grace.  We are all at different stages of learning to put off sin and put 
  on the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Church Jesus will return for, the one He 
  presents to the Father will be without spot, wrinkle, or blemish.  He is 
  not going to present a filthy old spiritually adulterous harlot to the Father 
  no matter whose doctrine says what
   
  judyt
   
   
   
  The point of the cross is that our misdeeds are 
  covered and remembered no more  -- is it not?  Your 
  view?John 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] A More Excellent Way?

[Judith H Taylor]

You lied once more Jonathan in making yourself the majority on TT
and by making this Hampton Keitley an expert on Pastor Wright - what's
wrong with the Bible
and I would say the same to you.  Refute this message by God's Word or
"shut up"  
In your favorite phrase, put up or shut up.   judyt   


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:45:08 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My my how the chickens cluck when our sacred cow is tipped.  Did I
> advise people to not read Henry Wright?  Of course not.  Sounds an 
> awful
> lot like a cult when one is not allowed to critique his teachings.  
> I
> advised TTer's that they have a bit of background to see how he and 
> you
> do your theology.  Handling criticism is something you need to 
> learn
> Judy.  If you honestly do not agree with the article I posted refute 
> it.
> As we have had to say with Izzy, either put up or shut up.
> 
> Jonathan Hughes
> 
> P.S. for the record I thought this was a different article than the 
> one
> I posted on Wright before.  Perhaps I am getting old.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 3:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A More Excellent Way?
> 
> 
> Jonathan wrote:  
> Many of us have read of Judy's teachings regarding sickness, 
> covenants
> and sanctification.  Much of her theology is based upon a man named
> Henry Wright.
> 
> jt: Most of you should know that I have no copyrighted "teachings" 
> on
> sickness, covenants, or sanctification.  Henry Wright is a pastor 
> with
> 17+ years of experience in tending sheep.
>  
> That his teaching is suspect has been pointed out numerous times by
> different people on this forum.  
> 
> jt: Will the presumption and error never end? Nobody on this forum 
> other
> than you Jonathan has pointed out anything of the sort. You posted 
> this
> Hampton Keitley nonsense once before and that's it. FYI Chris Barr 
> and
> his wife were reading the book the last time I heard from them.
> 
> I believe Judy has just spent the last week or so doing a intensive
> seminar with the author of A More Excellent Way.  
> 
> jt: Well as my kids used to say "ding dong, you're wrong" The author 
> of
> the above mentioned book has been in Canada filming and was not at 
> the
> Retreat Center. Pastor Wright is not a "one man band".
> 
> The following article was written to help people understand what 
> Wright
> (and indirectly Judy)teaches so that they can be informed. 
> 
> jt: Read Keitley's article at your own peril; he will add to any 
> fear
> and unbelief you already have with regard to sickness and God's
> unwillingness to make you well even to the point of calling this 
> curse a
> blessing in your life.
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged 
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify 
> the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and 
> destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by 
> a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may 
> be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the 
> above.
> 
> Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant 
> contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée.  Si 
> vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer 
> immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le 
> message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre).   Toute 
> diffusion ou utilisation  de cette information par une personne 
> autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être 
> illégale.  Merci de votre coopération relativement au message 
> susmentionné.
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
> may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) 
> http://www.InnGlory.org
> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you 
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
> 
> 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

John 
writes:Who said anything about my sins and iniquities being different 
from others?   Certainly not me.   But now, with Christ as 
one who has clearly reconciled humanity with the divine,  our sins and 
iniquities are hidden in Him.   Do you deny 
this?   
 
jt: Yes .. what does Jesus want with our sin and 
iniquity?  Also He is seated in the 3rd heaven at the RH of the Father 
and sin and iniquity are not allowed there.  There is no sin allowed in 
heaven, this is why we must deal with it here if we plan to go 
there. 
 
In Him, our sins are 
remembered NO MORE  (Jere 31:31-34.)  
 
jt: True, providing we 
release them, depart from them, and embrace His righteousness.
The Cross made our spiritual destiny a reality.   It 
expressed what God has always felt  --  a willingness to even die for 
His creation.   Kruger was discouraged with the way evangelicals used 
the Cross more as a negative/positive than as a blessing.   
 
jt: The cross was a shameful thing in that day; it is the 
resurrection power or dunamis released at the cross that is the blessing because 
when apprehended in our lives it frees us from the bondage of sin and releases 
us to serve the living God in the righteousness  proceeding from 
faith.
 
While I see his point and agree with his concern,   I do not 
see the Cross as an appeasement for the wrath of God.   I see it as 
God, with a broken heart, doing the impossible to accomplish what had proven to 
be the improbable   --   God, Himself, dying for a community 
of people who were never going to get it right apart from an unmeritorious favor 
from their Creator.  
 
jt: To begin with God is Spirit and Spirit can not die.  God 
did not die. Jesus was made a sacrifice in the flesh, IOW His physical body died 
and His Spirit went and preached to spirits in prison.
 
My sin problem -- in terms of destiny is over in 
Christ.    Apparently yours is not.  You believe that the 
Holy Spirit supercedes your will and, walla, there is no more sin.  What is 
the point in that teaching?   Eph 4 and Romans 7 stand as stark 
testimony against such a teaching.   
 
jt: No I don't believe that at all John and I don't understand why 
you, Jonathan, Lance et al. don't ask others what they believe rather 
than constantly presume that you know.  I don't believe God overrides 
the will of man ever and this includes all of the 
Godhead. Don't let your humor put you in a ditch. I 
suspect that most of the whole host of biblical comment you refer to is void of 
the "if's, and's and but's" (read conditions). 

  "Conditions," as I am now discovering, are sign posts along 
  the Way.  In the beginning, I was a babe in Christ  --  knowing 
  nothing and living a life without the full benefit of the abundance God has 
  promised.  As time goes by,  we begin to respond to these 
  "conditions."  I learned "belief," beginning in 1997 and that 
  continues to this day.  But  I was "saved" in 1957.   I 
  know more about the image of God than I did five months ago and now work to be 
  like Him in terms of  my commitment to my fellow man.   In the 
  beginning, I was fascinated with the Lord.   Today, I 
  love Him and all that He is and wants to be in me.  Few saints 
  meet these "conditions" in the same order or at the same time in their 
  spiritual lives.  None are lost before the "condition" is fully "obeyed" 
  or even mildly understood.  
jt: Where do you get the 
  authority to define who is saved/unsaved?  I was under the impression 
  that "all judgment" had been given to the Son and he will make the 
  pronouncement at the end.  You could at least qualify by saying "I 
  believeI was saved etc..."  If you truly love Him you will be doing 
  what He says and you and I will be in agreement well anyway this is how He 
  defines loving Him.
  The blood is effective to cleanse the conscience ONLY when we go to 
  the throne of grace in 
  time of need. 
  You test 
  the boundries of the heretical, Judy.    This is so wrong that 
  I do not know how to respond.   The idea that the continual flow of 
  the blood of the Lamb only works for us when we ask is so out of line with 
  biblical teaching as to be scary. 
   
  jt:  Oh it is so frustrating to be here without 
  a concordance, I will never leave home without mine again.  My daughter 
  has one but can't remember where it is.  Last time I was here I used 
  hers.  Izzy help me!!  In Hebrews (I think) we are instructed 
  to go to the throne of grace in time of need and the blood is to cleanse the 
  conscience from dead works (much of which is religious).  The idea of a 
  "continuel flow of blood" is Pentacostal and the theme of songs but I don't 
  believe it is any more scriptural than trying to put blood coverings over 
  unregenerate people and inanimate objects.  It's pure mythology. The 
  purpose of the blood is the cleansing of the conscience before 
  God.
   
  Legalism?  Works 
  salvation?   You bet.   As a babe in Chri

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:12:50 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 9/30/2004 11:04:46 AM 
  Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:jt: Proof texting 
  theology?  You've got to be kidding John. This verse speaks for itself. 
  
  If it 
  did "speak for itself," there would be no further comment from 
  you.   You contradict yourself by your 
  actions.

  jt: I'm not arguing with scripture John; I referenced 
  this scripture and Izzy wrote it out. What actions do you 
  refer
  to here?
  The prophet is addressing the Covenant people of the God who 
  changes not.  The people of God, way back when, were 
  identified as the Nation of Israel.   Physical circumcision was 
  their "birthmark." 
   
  jt: God's people in every generation are those with the right 
  heart attitude. Paul writes in Romans (don't have concordance) that 
  circumcision of the flesh is not where it's at, it has always been 
  circumcision of the heart. The difference between their
  covenant and ours is the power emanating from the cross in 
  the person of the indwelling Holy Spirit. 
   
  Today, Israel is given the same consideration as all those of the 
  pagan world and circumcision is of the heart.  We call this contrast 
  "change."
   
  jt: God has not changed and neither have His standards. Pagans 
  were always welcome when they met God's standards.
  Think Rahab, Cornelius, etc. I know there are others but I don't have 
  reference materials with me.  

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

In a message dated 10/1/2004 5:44:19 AM Pacific 
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
I am not certain how common this is in other 
areas, but it is very common here and among "Christian superstars".  Sin 
was (could still be) the pattern of the life of Jimmy Swaggert.  Benny Hinn 
is as phoney as a three dollar bill, but some people think He is God's right 
hand man.
John writes:And one more thing  --  
sin is no longer the deciding factor in our relationship with Christ.  
Romans 3:23 is constantly ignored on this forum by several who want to make 
personal and individual righteousness the issue that determines our saving 
relationship (is there another kind) with the Lord.   You know what it 
says but I will remind you: All have sinned and fall short (present tense action 
--  "are falling short even as we speak") of the glory of 
God.
 
jt: Sure because no-one is there yet not 
even the "all encompassing incarnational crowd" but we need to read on.  
There is Romans 7 where Paul describes his own battle with the part of him that 
is not wanting to be Spirit led... and then we read on further to Romans 
8:2,3 and learn that there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus 
- and here is the condition ... who walk after the Spirit and not after the 
flesh.  
 
There are three venues in which sin works its 
ugly will, two of which are pertinent to this discussion:   historical 
sin and sins of character.  Smoking, drinking, cursing, doping, etc are 
sins commited in time  --  they are historical, having a beginning and 
an ending.   Sins of character are very different.  They are with 
us all the time and form the basis for those things we commit (the historical 
sin).  Pride, conceit, bigotry, anger, selfishness, and the life  and 
so we sin and continually fall short of the glory of 
God. 
 
jt: Sin is sin - what purpose is there 
is dividing them up, we need to repent and depart from all of them. I would 
see your "historical" category as the iniquities of the Fathers because these 
kind of attitudinal things are often passed down in families.  But... 
however they come we need to repent and finish it right now in our 
generation.  This is why John can say that we "have sin" at any 
time  (I Jo 1:8.)  We are no better than those whom we dispise.  
It is Christ who makes us right.   It is His faith and victory that 
saves and this never changes.   We always need Him and are always 
lost without Him.  
 
jt: It is impossible to walk in love and 
despise others and if this is where we are walking we are not walking in 
anything belonging to Christ.  His faith and victory only avail for us when 
we walk in them.  John also wrote "he who sins is of the devil"
judyt

[TruthTalk] The More Excellent Way

[Judith H Taylor]

ï


From: "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>My 
tiresome and last reply below. This is beneficial to neither us or the 
group.  Again your refusal to work through the article provided 
isnoted.  When people feel that they are right and cannot be wrong they 
often will not take an honest look at their own position.  Usually 
thesepeople derive strength from their certain position that if it fell (and 
it almost always does) it would shake their foundations.  To avoid 
thisone must not look at opposing viewpoints, must not dialogue with people 
they disagree with and basically attack any dissenting voices.  I 
doubtyou will see yourself in the portrait above.
 
jt:   Interesting that you expect from me that which you are not 
willing to be an example by doing yourself Jonathan.  I have responded to 
this same article in the past.  Mr. Keatley's father (also a man of the 
cloth) died of cancer shortly before he wrote it so he had an axe to grind and 
apparently so do you Jonathan.
 
From: "Jonathan Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have not made myself 
themajority nor did I ever refer to Keitley as an expert on anything.  
He has an opinion that I share. Many of us have read of Judy's teachings 
regarding sickness, covenants and sanctification.  Much of her theology is 
based upon a man named Henry Wright. That his teaching is suspect has been 
pointed out numerous times by different people on this forum.  I believe 
Judy has just spent the last week or so doing a intensive seminar with the 
author of A More Excellent Way.  The following article was written to help 
people understand what Wright (and indirectly Judy) teaches so that they can be 
informed.
 
jt: I have responded to all of the above today and you show how much you 
respect me as a person and a believer in Christ by your stubborn refusal to 
acknowledge same.  I won't bother to repeat because it obviously falls upon 
deaf ears and blind eyes.
 
what does "that his teaching is suspect has been pointed out numerous times 
by different ppl on this forum" mean other than that you are justone of a 
number of people ie the majority...  And how does a man who  does 
not understand what Pastor Wright is about inform anyone 
aboutanything?  I was not aware of your dispensational theology 
Jonathan...
 
JH:  It only means that people other than me have pointed out that 
your view of sin/sickness is incorrect.  Lance, Bill, John, Terry, Izzy and 
Ihave all made posts to this regard in the past.  That is 6 
people.  It is all in the archives.  It is your opinion that Keatley 
does not understand Pastor Wright.  I disagree.  You may also be 
surprised that anyone can disagree with your position and not be a 
dispensationalist.
 
jt:  Not so, there is a lot of fear and unbelief out there with regard 
to sickness in many denominations and sadly our daughter and son-in-law have 
been taught this way; don't ask me how a 4yr old who has lost her carefreeness 
and joy in life and is now bald, white, and frail and in fear of germs is 
glorifying God or how this will get her more rewards in heaven.
 
The article is full of refutations of your theology.  This is done by 
God's Word.  You may read it and attempt to refute it if you wish.
 
jt: Rather it is full of refutations of Pastor Henry Wright and these are 
done by using Keatley's dispensational doctrine.
 
JH:  Regardless of what grid Keatley uses, Wright is proven 
wrong.
 
jt:  In Keatley's and your view Jonathan, but not in the view of those 
who believe the scriptures and/or those who are well today because of these 
Truths.
 

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
John writes:  It is hard to believe just how far off the 
biblical message you are.   Chapter 7 actually ends with 8:1  
--  there is 
therefore no condemnation for those in Christ !!   "Therefore" is a word that is 
saying "based upon what I have said before ..."  It is a word that looks 
back.    8:1 is tied to 7:25.   What Paul says 
afterwards effects the discussion but 8:1 has importance because of 
7:25.
 
judyt:
No 
John Romans 8:1 is tied to Romans 8:2 which reads "there is therefore 
now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk after the Spirit 
and not after the flesh" and this is the condition for their being no 
condemnation. There is a lot of condemnation for those walking after the flesh 
because their hearts condemn them before God (unless they are reprobate to begin 
with).    John: Your perfectionist theology forces you to 
ignore the conclusion Paul draws, not just for himself as you claim but for us 
all,  deny that 7:25 has anything to do with us today in spite of the fact 
that this is exactly what it says,  misapply 8:5 and then continue to 
believe and espouse that God has given you this 
interpretation. 
 
judyt:
Hey John, I don't understand your convoluted theology and 
reasoning but I am not ignoring any passage of scripture and I have no reason to 
cut any of them out of my Bible.  They are ALL good.   
John: Try asking yourself the question, why is Paul concerned with 
"condemnation" in Ro 8:1?    I doubt that you have ever asked 
yourself this question.   
 
Judyt:I don't have to John 
because it is self explanatory as I spoke of above.. if people walk after the 
flesh which is "in sin" they are under condemnation.
 
John:  And why is "condemnation" suddenly in the picture 
when it is not referenced or even implied in the preceding context?   
THE ONLY REASON FOR THE QUESTION IN 8:1 IS WHAT IS SAID IN 7:25.   We 
have two natures and one of them serves the law of sin and death  -- that 
is Paul's opinion so don't start with "false teaching" or "Kruger theology" or 
whatever will be used to color the fact that you cannot over come this 
point.
 
Judyt:
A 
person who is born from above is not supposed to be walking in "two natures" 
John. Sure indwelling sin is a consideration and we reckon it dead.  If any 
man be in Christ He is a New Creation, old things are passed away - behold all 
things have become new"    
 
John: Part of me serves the law of sin and death;  this is 
deserving of condemnation but, praise the Lord, there is none  for those 
who set their minds on things of the Spirit (8:5). 
 
Judyt:
No 
John - you not only have to be spiritually minded, you must "walk after the 
spirit" for there to be no condemnation.  
 
John: Does God want us to obey all of the 
commandments?   Of course he does  -- but there is that pesky 
second fleshly nature.    And if you think Romans 7 14-25 is the 
only passage that gives us this consideration, well, think again, 
Misssy.   Turn to Eph 4:14 - 23  - a passage in which Paul is 
urging the Ephesian CHRISTIANS, THE SAVED, THE ALREADY REDEEMED, THE DISCIPLE OF 
CHRIST, THOSE WHO HAVE THE SPIRIT AND ARE CLOTHED WITH "ARMOR OF 
GOD,"   to lay aside their the old self WHICH IS BEING CORRUPTED in 
accordance with the lusts of deceits,.  (4:22).  Think about it  
 THEY STILL HAVE THAT OLD MAN.   he HAS MORE LIVES THAN A CAT BUT 
HIS INFLUENCE DECREASES AS WE GROW UP IN CHRIST.
 
Judyt: 
As 
I've said over and over and over John. Salvation is a walk and the Ephesian 
believers had some overcoming to do and so do we.    

 
John: In James 4, that author tells his people to 
"confess your sins, one to another that you might be heale>"   WHAT 
SINS??   These are the redeemed  !!   But they continue 
to sin.   
 
Judyt:
The above verse has to do with physical healing although you and 
some others have balked at the tie between sin, sickness, and the iniquities of 
the fathers. I have no problems with this.
John: You asked "why separate sin into different venues"  or words 
to that effect  --  "sin is sin" you say.  Absolute 
nonsense..    The is a sin we commit  -- the biblical 
writers believe that we do not have to commit sin.   But there is sin 
that define us as people.   Pride, conceit, bigotry, arrogance, 
boastfulness, selfishness and the like.
 
Judyt:
I don't believe any of us should be defined by the above. We need to 
learn how to separate ourselves and others from this sin and see ourselves as 
God created us from the foundation of the world. The above are what we have been 
redeemed from in Christ and in Him there is no 
unrighteousness.  
 
John:  These sins exist in all of us (Ro 2:1) and only the most 
biased of students would deny that reality.  
 
Judyt:
They may in the beginning but these are the things we must discern and 
depart from because "everyone who names the name of the Lord must turn away from 
unrighteousness" (1 Tim 2:19) and as those who are now alive from the dead we 
must offer our bodies

[TruthTalk] Some things we might consider.

[Judith H Taylor]

John: What's wrong with accepting the fact that "righteousness" is a gift
bestowed upon us, not something that is earned through obdience  (Romans
4)

judyt: Because this is not entirely true, we can't make a doctrine from
just one scripture because scripture interprets scripture and scripture
teaches differently ie: "Little children let no one deceive you. He who
PRACTICES righteousness is righteous just as He is righteous. He who sins
is
of the devil for the devil has sinned from the beginning" 1 John 3:7,8.  

Terry writes:
I have been following this thread with more than the usual amount of 
interest.  John has offered some explanations of what the scripture says 
that are hard to argue with.  On the other hand, Judy has offered the 
above verse that is impossible to argue with.  How can both Christians 
come to such divergent views?  Bias has to be one reason, but it 
obviously involves more than that.

I do not have all the answers and would appreciate anyone's thinking on 
this, but I do think that I have a handle on one thing that causes much 
division.  That is how we define sin.  What mental picture do we get 
when we hear that word?  What is our attitude concerning it, not just in 
our own lives, but in the lives of others?

I suspect that John's mental picture would be far different from Judy's 
or Izzy's or mine, simply because he has more intimate contact with more 
sinners over more time than we do.  I also suspect that since he is 
dealing with people, who though they are sinners, are not comfortable 
with their sin and are seeking help, that he sees them more lovingly 
than we do.  John's ministry is trying to guide these reluctant 
sinners.  He cares about them, where the rest of us do not have that 
personal relationship with those he works with.

judyt:  Terri I believe God to be far more loving than any of us, John
included
and we are all prone to the same failures.  In my own walk I have found
that the
ONLY way not to have to cut scriptures out of the Bible is to ask God for
the
interpretation.  Too many times we accept some theological construct that
puts
us in a maze.  Been there - done that.  I want to be open to everything
God has
and I don't believe it is love to paint a different picture for those who
come in off
the street because there is no freedom or deliverance in anything other
than His
Truth.  The cults can make them feel good and leave them where they
are...  

We simply see with a detached eye that if they sin, they are sinners, 
while John has great compassion for these people and sees something 
greater, some potential on their part to improve if given time.  (When I 
use the words sin or sinner, I am talking about a continuous pattern, 
not an occasional slip.  We all slip.)

The original thought when this discussion began seemed to me to be "Can 
a person be saved and continue in a pattern of sin until he or she 
overcomes that sin ?"  John's view is apparently yes.  Judy's is 
apparently no.

Though I have great respect for my brother John, I will have to go with 
Judy on this one, for the following reasons:
1. Salvation requires forgiveness.  Forgiveness requires repentance.  
Repentance requires you to stop doing it your way and start doing it 
God's way.  John's experience may show that with counselling and prayer 
and time that the addict can stop being an addict.  This may affect his 
opinion or his commentary.  He has seen the results of this method.  It 
works.  Just one problem with this line of thought.  If you allow the 
addict to continue in his addiction after being saved, then you must 
extend the same courtesy to the wife beater, the child molester, and the 
serial killer.  Give them time and they will stop.

2.  The second thing that strikes me about this is that we no longer 
consider the demons.  Unclean spirits are just as real as the Holy 
Spirit.  When we think of addiction, be it to drugs or alcohol or food, 
we tend to look at this as a personal weakness and forget that demons 
are hard at work to destroy our life.  Anyone who is addicted is 
controlled by demons. Not by the Holy Spirit, but by an unclean spirit.  
Since the body of the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit, it 
should be obvious that an unclean spirit can not live in the same 
dwelling.  If the Holy Spirit has moved in, the unclean spirit has moved 
out. 

Those are my thoughts on this beautiful Sunday morning.  There are a 
whole bunch of maybes and possiblys in this post. simply because I am 
not certain that I have accurately apprehended what John and Judy and 
Izzy are saying.  In fact, I am the only one on the list that I fully 
understand.
Tell me what you think.
Terry

>
>
>  
>

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If yo

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Hi 
  John:I don't think either Izzy or I am saying what you appear to be 
  responding to. I have no idea what your "unbiblical doctrine of holiness and 
  perfectionism" is, probably a CofC thing. The scriptures teach that "without 
  holiness it is impossible to please God" and that "without holiness noone will 
  see the Lord" So what do you have against 
  it?   judytWhat's wrong with accepting the fact that 
  "righteousness" is a gift bestowed upon us, not something that is earned 
  through obdience  (Romans 4)
   
  Judyt: Righteousness is not just 
  bestowed John, I know it is called that in one place but in 1 John we are 
  told that it is the one who "does righteousness" who is 
  righteous.
  JudyT:As for Greek tenses and verbs - the Holy Spirit can 
  communicate with or without them - all Greeks are not saved are 
  they?And John:Judy  -- what in the world are you 
  doing?   Look -- I go into a bakery and order an English 
  muffin.   The counter help says "We hate the English people and do 
  not serve them."  What would be the very next thing a sane person would 
  do  --  run like hell for the next story  AND AND AND hope the 
  crazy counter help does not follow you.   You combine Greek 
  grammar and unsaved Greek people to argue that rules of grammar make no 
  difference in biblical study.  That makes sense to you  
  !!!   
   
  Judyt: This wasn't my point John.  What I am saying is that the Holy 
  Spirit can communicate an understanding of scripture with or
  without Greek tenses, verbs, and Greek grammar because this is His 
  ministry and this is what He has been sent for. Are you saying
  that God had nothing to do with any of the translations into English and 
  other languages or and that the Holy Spirit can not use any language 
  other than Greek to speak to a person's heart?John:
  You make fun of "bias."  Yet, clearly and obviously, in a painful 
  sense, bias is all you have left in this disagreement.  
   
  Judyt: What do you believe is my bias?  Am I biased against Greek 
  and Greeks?
   
  John:
  There are boundaries   to our disageemnets.  One of them 
  is "what the Bible says."   AND YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS 
  IF YOU REJECT THE GRAMMATICAL RULES THAT GOVERN THE LANGUAGE OF THE 
  MESSAGE.  And that is what you are doing  --  just to keep from 
  saying that you are wrong.   
   
  Judyt: No John, what I am doing is saying that the Holy Spirit is the one 
  who perfectly understands and interprets the Word of God and He is competent 
  in all languages.
  John:I am not going to argue this point.  If we do not the good 
  sense to understand that grammar is not the work of the devil, then the 
  discussion is too wierd for me.  Judyt:
  Who said anything about grammar being the work of the devil?  I 
  didn't say it, neither did I imply it.  Grammar is fine only we are not 
  limited by having to know Greek grammar in our study and desire to understand 
  of the Word of God. A Strongs Concordance and an English translation along 
  with the ministry of the Holy Spirit works just as well.  What's wrong 
  with that?
   
  Grace and Peace,
  Judyt
   
   
   

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
Lance writes:
Happily Canadians possess no biases 
whatsoever.
 
Judyt: That's a "whopper" Lance.  What is that 
line by Robert Burns you keep quoting?  
You have a "huge" bias toward the President of 
the USA.  I even bought a magazine I have no use for just for
an article in it on the liberal view of George 
W. to try to understand the mindset of ppl like yourself but I wasted 
my money because it didn't help.  I still find 
no rationality, reason, or ground for liberal hatred toward George W.  
We are presently at our daughter's house 
in Austin TX and a family in her neighborhood have a sign in their front 
yard that reads 
 
"Luv Ya Dubya"
 
Which I find much more Christian.  Don't 
you?
 
 
 
 

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Hi 
  John:I don't think either Izzy or I am saying what you appear to be 
  responding to. I have no idea what your "unbiblical doctrine of holiness and 
  perfectionism" is, probably a CofC thing. The scriptures teach that "without 
  holiness it is impossible to please God" and that "without holiness noone will 
  see the Lord" So what do you have against it?  
  judytWhat's wrong with accepting the fact that 
  "righteousness" is a gift bestowed upon us, not something that is earned 
  through obdience  (Romans 4)  JudyT:As for Greek 
  tenses and verbs - the Holy Spirit can communicate with or without them - all 
  Greeks are not saved are they?And John:Judy  -- what 
  in the world are you doing?   Look -- I go into a bakery and order 
  an English muffin.   The counter help says "We hate the English 
  people and do not serve them."  What would be the very next thing a sane 
  person would do  --  run like hell for the next story  AND AND 
  AND hope the crazy counter help does not follow you. 
  You combine Greek grammar and unsaved Greek people to argue that 
  rules of grammar make no difference in biblical study.  That makes sense 
  to you  !!!   You make fun of "bias."  Yet, 
  clearly and obviously, in a painful sense, bias is all you have left in this 
  disagreement.  There are boundaries   to our 
  disageemnets.  One of them is "what the Bible says."   AND YOU 
  CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IF YOU REJECT THE GRAMMATICAL RULES THAT 
  GOVERN THE LANGUAGE OF THE MESSAGE.  And that is what you are doing  
  --  just to keep from saying that you are wrong.   I am 
  not going to argue this point.  If we do not the good sense to understand 
  that grammar is not the work of the devil, then the discussion is too wierd 
  for me.  
John

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

ï


Why assume all Christians are consistently Spirit led, they may be filled 
but at times misguided.
when we are all of one heart and one mind is when we are all both Spirit 
filled and Spirit led.John, Do you really think that 
going through all these contortions in Greek is going to make us all agree on 
scriptural interpretation? Do all Greek Christians agree with each other? Just 
goes to show: knowing all the Greek in the world doesnât keep you from being 
misled by someone who interprets scripture incorrectly. Izz
In college, we called this 
  BIBLE STUDY.  As far as Greeks agreeing with Greeks  -- the more 
  important observation is ---  spirit filled and spirit lead Christians do 
  not agree on all things.   a broher,John 
   

[TruthTalk] Some things we might consider.

[Judith H Taylor]

John: Judy, you are the queen of proof-texters.   One 
  could prove anything with the methodology you use for advancing a point. 

Judyt: I don't think so John because I am not playing a game or 
  trying to prove anything. I want to serve the truth myself so what is the 
  point. I am not building theological constructs. 
You most 
certainly are.  In fact, it is monlithlic !!!   You are every bit 
a systematic theologian as Kruger or Culman or whoever.  You just don't 
have any rules for arriving at your interpretation, that I can see, except 
-  lets s  --    oh, you must have more than 
one verse in order to establish a teaching AND the Spirit will give you a nudge 
when you are on the right track.  Maybe I have that last one 
wrong.   How do you know when the Spirit has given you an 
interpretation?  
 
judyt:
Have it your way John, who 
am I to evaluate what I am doing.  If you are seeing monolithic theological 
constructs then they must be there, right?
I thought you called rules 
(read commandments) legalistic and bad . Are you now calling them good when it 
comes to theology? Please, please
understand that I don't ask 
spirits anything and I don't accept nudges from spirits.  When I lack 
wisdom I ask the Father.
 
John: Here is a 
consideration  --  try finding a disciple of Christ, one who had 
accepted Him, that was inhabited with an e vile spirit before going to the 
Canaan Land.   Judyt: Evil spirits were not dealt with under 
the old covenant because those believers had no way to deal with them other than 
to obey God's Law and incidentally "obedience (to Jesus'Word) is still the best 
deliverance" because they can't stand light nor can they stand love. Under the 
New Covenant we as believers have the power by the indwelling Spirit to cast 
them out in Jesus Name. 
Sooo,  I am right?  
 
Judyt:
Right about what? Jesus had 
not been revealed before Israel went into Canaan Land so how could anyone accept 
Him? However, you can find plenty of demon possessed people during his earthly 
ministry - the disciples were busy casting them out in His Name.
 

[TruthTalk] Fw: who are the insurgents?

[Judith H Taylor]

So much for the notion that Iraq's insurgency is a popular uprising
of all Iraq's citizens who hate the Americans. 

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html

Half of insurgents captured at Samara were Africans 

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, October 5, 2004 
BAGHDAD – The U.S. military has established that Al Qaida-aligned
insurgents from North Africa have played a leading role in the Sunni
insurgency in Iraq. 
Officials said about half of the insurgents captured in Samara last week
were nationals from Arab states in North Africa. They said an initial
interrogation has determined that the insurgents arrived from such
countries as Egypt, Sudan and Tunisia. 
U.S. officials said insurgents from such countries as Algeria, Egypt,
Sudan and Tunisia have been recruited for operations against the
Multinational Force in Iraq. They said many of the insurgents were
recruited by the Salafist Brigade for Combat and Call, based in Algeria
and regarded as the leading subcontractor for Al Qaida. 
The presence of North African insurgents was highlighted during the U.S.
military operation to capture Samara, under the control of a coalition of
Saddam Hussein supporters and Al Qaida-aligned agents since October 2003.

About 150 insurgents were said to have been killed in the combination of
air and ground strikes by U.S. units and Iraqi forces. 
The insurgents were said to have been recruited by Salafist operatives in
North Africa and transported to Iraq via Syria. Many of them then joined
the Tawhid and Jihad group, headed by Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as
the most lethal insurgent in Iraq. The recruits were provided with Iraqi
government documents that listed their professions as everything from
electricians to farmers. 
Officials said resistance by Saddam and Al Qaida-aligned forces continues
despite the capture of Samara. They said the military has not captured
the heads of the insurgency. 
The U.S. military and the Defense Department has assessed that the lion's
share of insurgency attacks have been conducted by former members of
Saddam's military and security forces. But they said the suicide bombings
in Baghdad and cities in the Sunni Triangle have often included foreign
volunteers. 

Copyright © 2004 East West Services, Inc.
Print this Article  Email this article Free Headline Alerts
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

Judyt:Not to me; I see them as different. 
Working for the Lord can be the religious "dead works" we are to repent from (in 
Hebrews). There are a lot of ppl going around out there doing a lot of things. 
They are all well meaning but some are ignorantly working against God's 
Kingdom.John writes:The ONLY thing that makes a work for the Lord a 
"dead work" is lack of faith.  There may be a lot of ppl out there doing a 
lot of things -- but there are none over here who are not.   Faith 
drives one (eventually) to serve.  John
 
Judyt:
I don't believe the scripture in Hebrews refers to 
faith; the important thing is what our faith is rests in.  Anything 
done in the flesh is a "dead work" and everything we do in response to the 
leading of the Spirit and out of obedience to Christ is classified as "serving 
the Living God"  There are lots of fleshworks out there. 
all done in the name of God. 

[TruthTalk] WorldNetDaily: Uncle Sam will soon want your kids

[Judith H Taylor]

Thanks for the news items Vincent. It's good to see you are seemingly
back
to normal.  We are still on the road on the way back home now after
having
just spent a week in Austin TX with our kids there.  The grandaughter
with
ALL is still a sweet little girl but very frail and it is awful to see
what they have to
go through. I went to her treatment with them on Monday. My daughter has
to
sit and watch while they inject poison into the little girl's body but at
this point
she feels like she has no other option.

I'm sure glad the hurricane season seems to have abated for now... We
should
be back in Va by Friday sometime.  I've been doing the email on our
laptop at
different campgrounds. This one in Monroe LA has cable so we watched the
debate.

Judyt


  
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] FYI, For Naysayers & Bush Haters

[Judith H Taylor]

Judyt:
And rather than living by your own creed, you respond with a third
question
hm. I believe I'm speaking with a "true master of evasion"

Evasive, evasive, evasive. Rather than addressing the question(s)
directly
(honestly) you answer them with another question. Would you allow your
kids
to do that? 'Scuse me your honor but, I know of people who committed
worse
crimes than I did. Why don't you go after them?


> Jonathan in angry red.(which does not show up on webmail, sorry)
>
> Lance writes:
> SH should have been left to ravage his own people then, they would have
had more of their citizenry and you yours. This MISTAKE on the part of
GWB
may well cost you your EMPIRE.
>
> Judyt:
> Is there never a time to take a stand for what is right IY eyes Lance?
>
> Jonathan: That is exactly what Lance is doing: standing for what is
right.
That is exactly what half of your country is doing.  They were lied to
about
an unneeded war.  You bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Judyt: One of us is deceived big time Jonathan. What about Edmund
Burke's
famous quote "all that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men
do
nothing?"
>
> Jonathan: A great quote.
>
> Judyt: have you no empathy for the people who were tortured, raped,
maligned by Sadaam and his two evil sons?
>
> Jonathan: Stupid question.  Of course he does.  Do you have empathy for
those who were tortured and maligned in the Iraqi prison by Americans?  I
doubt it.
>
> Judyt: You've got to be kidding Jonathan. There is no comparison
between
having hands and heads cut off, being hung, having your daughters raped
at
12yrs of age and what went on at that prison. I don't defend what these
people did any more than I would defend what Lt. Calley did in Vietnam
but
we are dealing with people laboring under the curse and the reality is
that
these things unfortunately do happen.  At least our system takes them to
court and executes a humane justice...Not to mention the 3,000 families
in
NY who were impacted by the terrorists Sadaam encouraged on 9/11/2001.
>
> Jonathan: A complete and utter lie.  Read the 9/11 commission report.
Sadaam had nothing, I repeat nothing to do with 9/11.
>
> Judyt: How do you know what Sadaam was and was not involved in. What
happened on 9/11 happened because of Islamic extremists which he and his
system harbored and encouraged. This is proven. There are times when one
must do what is right and leave the outcome with God.
>
> Jonathan: If only you would do this.  You have killed tens of thousands
more than 9/11, almost 2 civilians who have nothing to do with this
war.
Did you enjoy the pictures of the little kids being pulled from the
rubble
this week?  Is this what is meant by good men doing something?  Is this
pleasing to God.  No!  It is a stench in His nostrils.
>
> Judyt: And what about the little kids in a small town in Russia, held
hostage in a school building by the same kind of terrorists. Terrorized
intentionally with bombs hung over their heads and given no food or water
for days at a time while their anguished parents waited.
> I wonder which is the greater stench in God's nostrils. What if this
happened is a rural town in Ontario? What would it take to open your eyes
Jonathan?
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

ï


Izzy writes:John, Do you really think that 
going through all these contortions in Greek is going to make us all agree on 
scriptural interpretation? Do all Greek Christians agree with each other? Just 
goes to show: knowing all the Greek in the world doesnât keep you from being 
misled by someone who interprets scripture incorrectly. Izz
John 
responds:In college, we called this BIBLE STUDY.  As far as Greeks 
agreeing with Greeks  -- the more important observation is ---  spirit 
filled and spirit lead Christians do not agree on all things.
 
Judyt:
There is a difference 
between setting oneself up as a Bible critic and submitting oneself to the Word 
of God.   

[TruthTalk] Some things we might consider.

[Judith H Taylor]

Lance Muir wrote:

Sin is a disease and we all have it. We are, in fact, born with it. I
heard
someone say that we focus unduly and somewhat inappropriately on what we
do
over what we are.
  

Judyt:  That someone was not speaking "the wisdom from above" - there is
a Proverb
that says "even a child is known by what he/she does"
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

In a message dated 10/5/2004 5:54:52 PM Pacific 
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why assume all Christians are 
consistently Spirit led, they may be filled but at times misguided.when we 
are all of one heart and one mind is when we are all both Spirit filled and 
Spirit led.John 
responds: Because I admit to reality while yo are busy defending 
theory.   
 
Judyt:
I think you have it reversed John.  Reality is 
that Christ is not divided and those who are walking 
after His Spirit will of necessity all be of one 
heart and one mind.  Today everyone is saying something
different while all claiming to be going to 
heaven.  Something has to change, there will be no strife or
party spirit there so we have got to get it 
together while we are here and this is no theory, this is the
facts...

[TruthTalk] Some things we might consider.

[Judith H Taylor]

 
In a message dated 10/5/2004 
6:43:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:How do you 
know  [for a certainty]  when the Spirit has given you an 
interpretation?  Judy -  I repeat my 
question.   
 
Hi 
John:
I 
can only speak for myself. I know that I am receiving wisdom from heaven when 
the scriptures
I 
am questioning begin to harmonize with the rest of the Bible and I don't 
have to ignore any of them 
cut them out, or explain them away.  As Terry says it is not 
complicated and we don't need a whole
library of commentaries in order to understand the Bible, just a 
willingness to love the Lord and do
what He says.
 

[TruthTalk] Some things we might consider.

[Judith H Taylor]

John writes:Just for the 
record:Smithson does believe in Spirit guidance.   The 
difference between my view and Judy/Izzy's  is the difference between 
providence and a hunch  (often called a "revelation" by us pentecostal 
types.)   The former is known via some sort of confirmation - a sign 
or an event or soemthing that is so oeverwhelmingly Divine as to be without 
argument. Reliability  --  100%.    Hunch, intuition, a 
"revelation" is a highly personal event, extremely subjective in terms of 
verification and not all that reliable.  On occasion, it is from 
God.    Judyt:
I've been referring to neither of the above John. 
I do believe the gifts of the spirit may operate in a similar way, that is, 
intuitively; a Word of Knowledge or a Word of Wisdom.  I've seen that on 
occasion during a Church service.  What I've been talking about is 
regular Bible Study and wisdom for ones own life in walking after the 
Spirit.

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

  John 
writes:Why then the Bible?  JohnTerry responds: 
  Because it was written by the Holy Spirit?Terry
 John writes:Of course I believe the Spirit had a role in giving 
us the Bible.   That is not the point.   If we have a Spirit 
that tells us what we need to know,  why do we need the bible?   
Look at what is being said.    It is like me writing a letter of 
instruction to my children on what to do with the house when the wife and I are 
on vacation and then telling them, "if you have a problem with the letter, don't 
worry, I will calling you several times a day and making it clear as to what I 
want done."  There is no point in my writing the letter if I am going to 
suerintend their handling of the letter.   Not to mention that this 
teaching results in the believer having to say that his/her interpretation is 
right because it is inspirited.   John 
 
Judyt:
I don't know how obedient your children are John but you have to understand 
that everyone born in Adam has been invaded by an entity alien to God thus 
Paul's admission in Romans 7.  We know what we should do mentally but there 
is something lacking in the carrying out of same so the Comforter was sent 
to both encourage and empower us to do the will of the Father
which becomes more and more difficult as our culture reverts back to 
paganism and the old mystery religions. We just spent a week with our daughter 
and son-in-law who have been faithful to raise our grandchildren in the faith 
they are walking in .. but I see the influence of this culture on them.  
Sweet little Jenna likes Lizzie Mac Guire and she told me that Lizzie lies just 
a little bit but she is still a Christian.
 

[TruthTalk] 113 Things Planned Parenthood Hates About GWB

[Judith H Taylor]

 
Judyt:
Glad to see you qualified that Lance, 
because Jesus is not "humanity"  Jesus IS THE TRUTH.
 
ONE thing I hate about humanity (including myself 
and all of the participants of TT and GWB/DC (both human)) is playing fast and 
loose with the truth. The exception, of course, being Jesus. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: October 06, 2004 04:55
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 113 Things 
  Planned Parenthood Hates About GWB
  
  
  Corrected 
  link:
   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:49 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] 113 Things Planned 
  Parenthood Hates About GWB
   
  113 
  things Planned Parenthood hates about President 
  Bush
  www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40785 
   

[TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

 
Judyt:
We are back to the great divide between 
reality and theology,
How can one have faith in what one is 
ignorant of.  IOW there are those who claim to have faith but who do not 
"hear His voice"
Dead religious works are one example of 
this His faithfulness is in fulfilling His Word, not the words of well 
meaning theologians.
 
NEVER WHAT our faith rests in, please. IN WHOM our 
faith rests..Not constructs, Judith. Ours is an embodied faith. It is HIS 
FAITHFULNESS. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judith H 
  Taylor 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: October 06, 2004 05:34
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and 
  weep!
  
  Judyt:Not to me; I see them as different. 
  Working for the Lord can be the religious "dead works" we are to repent from 
  (in Hebrews). There are a lot of ppl going around out there doing a lot of 
  things. They are all well meaning but some are ignorantly working against 
  God's Kingdom.John writes:The ONLY thing that makes a work for the 
  Lord a "dead work" is lack of faith.  There may be a lot of ppl out there 
  doing a lot of things -- but there are none over here who are not.   
  Faith drives one (eventually) to serve.  John
   
  Judyt:
  I don't believe the scripture in Hebrews refers 
  to faith; the important thing is what our faith is rests in.  
  Anything done in the flesh is a "dead work" and everything we do in response 
  to the leading of the Spirit and out of obedience to Christ is classified as 
  "serving the Living God"  There are lots of fleshworks out 
  there. all done in the name of 
God. 

Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Read it and weep!

[Judith H Taylor]

ï


Judyt:
Hey! I've never promoted myself as God almighty. What does personally 
submitting oneself to the Word of God have to do with comprehending the 
thoughts and the intent of every human being under the sun?
 
You suggest herein that you, Judith, fall into the 
latter category. This being the case how then does one account for the reality 
of your misapprehension of most of what's being MEANT in the posts of Jonathan 
and John? Think the unthinkable that, in fact, this is so. Why?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judith H 
  Taylor 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: October 06, 2004 06:14
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Read it and 
  weep!
  
  Izzy writes:John, Do you really think that 
  going through all these contortions in Greek is going to make us all agree on 
  scriptural interpretation? Do all Greek Christians agree with each other? Just 
  goes to show: knowing all the Greek in the world doesnât keep you from being 
  misled by someone who interprets scripture incorrectly. Izz
  John 
  responds:In college, we called this BIBLE STUDY.  As far as Greeks 
  agreeing with Greeks  -- the more important observation is ---  
  spirit filled and spirit lead Christians do not agree on all 
  things.
   
  Judyt:
  There is a difference 
  between setting oneself up as a Bible critic and submitting oneself to the 
  Word of God.   

Re: [TruthTalk] Back Online

[Judith H. Taylor]

Hi Everyone:

We just got our power back this morning and I'm praising the Lord. It has
been an
interesting week in the dark, stumbling around with flashlights and
scrapping for
water and ice. Actually we were blessed in that our kids got their power
back before
us so we could shower at their houses and they cooked the evening meal.
Otherwise
it was my husband and me at the kitchen table with one light and one 5"
battery
powered TV we borrowed from our daughter.  The weather cooperated in that
it was
not oppresively hot during the daytime and it cooled off at night.

OTOH some are still without power and the profiteers are here selling
generators
worth $649 from the back of trucks for $900 cash and $1000 credit card.
Ice that
should be less than a dollar is selling for $2 a bag - also there was
some looting of
the houses of the people who evacuated with TV's and computers stolen but
on the
positive side some neighbors met the people next door for the first time
and people
were helping people. Red Cross and Salvation Army are providing meals and
ice and
we got water at the fire station.  Someone we don't know loaned us a
generator on 
Tues when he got his power back, he works with our daughter-in-law, so
good 
Samaritans are still out there. Sam (no pun intended) is a redneck who
doesn't know 
the Lord so I'm going to lay hands on that machine and ask the Lord to
bless him 
before we send it back.

Our God has been faithful, praise His name.

Judy
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Ten Commandments Support

[Judith H. Taylor]

Someone wrote:


 
Read Matthew 15:21-28. Ask yourself: who are 
the dogs? If you answer GENTILES, 
you are correct. Now read Revelation 22:14-15. Ask yourself: who are the 
dogs? 
If you answer GENTILES, you are 
correct.
 
Judy:
Dogs are people who are outside the 
covenant.
Today the covenant is with Jesus and all of us 
enter in by faith; today the word 
'dog' does not necessarily mean 'gentile' 
only.
 
Grace and Peace
Judy
 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Ten Commandments Support

[Judith H. Taylor]

You are right, I don't understand your 'basic doctrine' Mr. Slade but it 
makes
no difference. Dogs are still people who are outside the covenant then 
and
now and there is no Jew/ Gentile in Christ - because He has broken down 

the wall of partition.  That is, unless you have 'another Jesus'
 
Judy
 
 "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That someone would be Slade. Why 
discuss finer points when someone doesn't understand basic 
doctrine?

   
  shalom
  slade
  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
    - Original Message - 
From: 
Judith H. 
Taylor 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2003 
12:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ten 
Commandments Support

Someone wrote:


 
Read Matthew 15:21-28. Ask yourself: who 
are the dogs? If you answer GENTILES, 
you are correct. Now read Revelation 22:14-15. Ask yourself: who are 
the dogs? 
If you answer GENTILES, you are 
correct.
 
Judy:
Dogs are people who are outside the 
covenant.
Today the covenant is with Jesus and all 
of us enter in by faith; today the word 
'dog' does not necessarily mean 'gentile' 
only.
 
Grace and Peace
Judy
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Ten Commandments Support

[Judith H. Taylor]

 "Bruce Woodford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Galatians 3:28 does NOT teach that, upon conversion, Jews cease to 
 be Jews, Greeks cease to be Greeks,  bondmen cease to be bondmen, 
free men cease to be free men, nor that males cease to be males or 
that females cease to be females!

Judy:
So far as God is concerned "putting on Christ" means there
is no difference, this is what Gal 3:28 says.

Bruce:
New covenant scriptures clearly teach that regenerate Jews have 
 responsibilities that are different from those of regenerate Greeks, 
 that regenerate bondmen have different responsibilities from those 
of regenerate free men and that regenerate males have different 
responsibilities than regenerate females.  (There are distinct 
commands given to each of these groups which are not required 
of the others.)

Judy:
I've been a student of scripture for a long time Bruce and have
never seen these different responsibilities. What is required
of anyone who comes to Christ other than to be conformed
to His image?
 
Bruce:
The point of the passage in Gal.3 is that none of these are any 
 longer "under the schoolmaster" (the law), but that by faith in 
Christ they are all "children of God" and they are all "one in Christ". 
Therefore in Christ, there is no longer any barrier that hinders 
communion, communication or mutual ministry between these 
groups because they are all members in the same body.

Judy:
The law hasn't gone anywhere and yes we are free from it so
long as we walk after the Spirit. But break God's law and you
will see that it's curse still works. I'm curious about these
'different responsibilities' Bruce.  What are they?  We need 
to be careful not to put burdens upon people that the Lord 
is not requiring.

Grace and Peace,
Judy

 
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Back Online

[Judith H. Taylor]

Terry:
 
Thanks for letting me know you've been there too; I'm still amazed at what 

a difference having no electrical power makes in one's life. It 
certainly
brings out both the best and the worst in people. Now we have the 
price
gougers asking thousands of $$ to get fallen and leaning trees out of
ppls yards and some still don't have their lights on yet.  We 
certainly are
frail creatures without the power, grace, and mercy of God.
 
All blessings to you, in Him,
Judy
 
 
 
 "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  

  
Judy:
Welome back.  Speaking as  someone who has been there and 
done that,  I imagine that you are giving thanks now for things 
like warm water and electricity.
 
Isn't it funny how sonething like this can bring out the worst in 
some folks and the best in others?
 
Terry 
---Original 
Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, 
September 25, 2003 10:56:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Back Online
 Hi Everyone:We just got our power back this 
morning and I'm praising the Lord. It hasbeen aninteresting week 
in the dark, stumbling around with flashlights andscrapping 
forwater and ice. Actually we were blessed in that our kids got 
their powerback beforeus so we could shower at their houses and 
they cooked the evening meal.Otherwiseit was my husband and me 
at the kitchen table with one light and one 5"batterypowered TV 
we borrowed from our daughter. The weather cooperated in thatit 
wasnot oppresively hot during the daytime and it cooled off at 
night.OTOH some are still without power and the profiteers are 
here sellinggeneratorsworth $649 from the back of trucks for 
$900 cash and $1000 credit card.Ice thatshould be less than a 
dollar is selling for $2 a bag - also there wassome looting 
ofthe houses of the people who evacuated with TV's and computers 
stolen buton thepositive side some neighbors met the people next 
door for the first timeand peoplewere helping people. Red Cross 
and Salvation Army are providing meals andice andwe got water at 
the fire station. Someone we don't know loaned us agenerator on 
Tues when he got his power back, he works with our daughter-in-law, 
sogood Samaritans are still out there. Sam (no pun intended) is 
a redneck whodoesn't know the Lord so I'm going to lay hands on 
that machine and ask the Lord tobless him before we send it 
back.Our God has been faithful, praise His 
name.Judy--"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.orgIf you 
do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and he will be subscribed.. 

  

  
  


  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - 
  Click 
  Here