Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14
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
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 CliftonTo: 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
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
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
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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -------
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 -------
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 -------
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 -------
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
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
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
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
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 DeeganTo: 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
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
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??
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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?
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 Gods 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?
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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?
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 dont mind his running mate John Edwards though. Kerrys platform is remarkably similar to Bushs. 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 Kerrys 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 OReilly. 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?
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 dont mind his running mate John Edwards though. Kerrys platform is remarkably similar to Bushs. 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 Kerrys 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 OReilly. 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?
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?
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 wont 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 Bushs (or Kerrys) 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
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?
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?
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
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?
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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 Pauls 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 wouldnt 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. Dont accept the foreshadowing of Gods 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?
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
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!
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!
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?
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!
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!
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!
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
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!
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.
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!
[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!
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!
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.
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?
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!
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
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
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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!
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
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
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
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
"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
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