Re: [TruthTalk] I Hope I'm Not too Late...
well, if you all are going to quit because I came on line -- I'll just lurk. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ditto Judy's comments from me jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Christine, I can't see the picture - Must be my Norton spam blocker or something, is there another way you could send it? Have really enjoyed you. Thanks for being a blessing to us on TT - judyt On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:45:37 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I just wanted to say one last time that it has been such a joy getting to know you all. I praise God for your wisdom and passion. Here's a picture of me grinning ear-to-ear with my mom on Broadway a couple of months ago. My father babysat all of my sisters back home while we two girls painted the town red! I love you all. -Christine Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
Re: [TruthTalk] I Hope I'm Not too Late...
Ditto Judy's comments from me jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Christine, I can't see the picture - Must be my Norton spam blocker or something, is there another way you could send it? Have really enjoyed you. Thanks for being a blessing to us on TT - judyt On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:45:37 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I just wanted to say one last time that it has been such a joy getting to know you all. I praise God for your wisdom and passion. Here's a picture of me grinning ear-to-ear with my mom on Broadway a couple of months ago. My father babysat all of my sisters back home while we two girls painted the town red! I love you all. -Christine Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
RE: [TruthTalk] More Goodbyes from our house to yours
Write with special thoughts and "whats happenin" amy time. God Bless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thank you so much for the photos of your beautiful self and family. I agree with JD; our kids outdo us to the max! I cant help crying right now, realizing that this is really goodbye. I dearly love you all, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:37 AMTo: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] More Goodbyes from our house to yours Just had to get into the images if only a little - judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Mentoring and See Ya
Some you know as members of TT. Others have been named. And still others will remain unnamed -- people who would have no meaning to you. Not to be left out of the mix are Christ and Paul..in that order. Christ the author and finisher. Paul - the patient and courageous theologian. The mediation of the revelation of Christ continues to this day, but certainly , Paul is the beginning of this mediation. Christianity would be exactly as it is now, without Paul, and we can say amen to this if we believe that Christianity is what it is today by the design and will of God in Christ . if not Pual, then there would be another. And so, you will know what I do not mean to say when I write these words, "I cannot imagine what The Faith would be like apart from Paul's contribution." All that I consider "mentoring" centers around the teachings of Christ , personally, and as He revealed them to Paul and the others. Everything. What is noteworthy about that statement is this: my appreciation of these last two is no different in my life than for any on TruthTalk. Salute to you all. No time remaining for new discussions. John David Smithson Out !!! -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maybe then you could tell us about the men that Mentored you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This, of course, is not the truth. You already know what I do. Now, because your memory is no longer than your brain stem means nothing to me. You ask only to cause trouble. But go to the archives and look it up. The bean count still belongs to the Lord. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I only compare because we all know you do nothing. That is why you can't say anything.No one is trying to draw attention to themselves just trying to draw attention to one who talks a big talk then when called on it backs down because that is what it is JUST TALK. 0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christ's mentoring is what made the 12 apostles the force they were. Let's see -- that's 12 divided by three (years) and a 100 years later , they tell me there was somewhere around 6 million Christians. But make fun of it if you will. Part of mentoring (read:discipleship) is the giving up of self. It is the carnal mind that makes a game out of sharing the gospel and comparing "success" landmarks. It is Christ's example that really matters, here -- not mine nor yours. the comparisons have been made. You ignored them then -- you would do so again if agreed to play this very immature game. What shall we call this game? "My Sword is bigger than yours?" If we are to pray in our closets -- surely our ministries are not for the purpose of attracting attention to self. I will pray that you move away from self as you continue doing what every you do "for the Lord." After all -- the head count belongs to the Lord for He is the one who adds to His assemblage. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You Mentor but have No one that you have mentored. Impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe God is trying to tell you something, Kevin. The "x" in the box is probably not what you had in mind. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mentoring
This, of course, is not the truth. You already know what I do. Now, because your memory is no longer than your brain stem means nothing to me. You ask only to cause trouble. But go to the archives and look it up. The bean count still belongs to the Lord. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I only compare because we all know you do nothing. That is why you can't say anything.No one is trying to draw attention to themselves just trying to draw attention to one who talks a big talk then when called on it backs down because that is what it is JUST TALK. 0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christ's mentoring is what made the 12 apostles the force they were. Let's see -- that's 12 divided by three (years) and a 100 years later , they tell me there was somewhere around 6 million Christians. But make fun of it if you will. Part of mentoring (read:discipleship) is the giving up of self. It is the carnal mind that makes a game out of sharing the gospel and comparing "success" landmarks. It is Christ's example that really matters, here -- not mine nor yours. the comparisons have been made. You ignored them then -- you would do so again if agreed to play this very immature game. What shall we call this game? "My Sword is bigger than yours?" If we are to pray in our closets -- surely our ministries are not for the purpose of attracting attention to self. I will pray that you move away from self as you continue doing what every you do "for the Lord." After all -- the head count belongs to the Lord for He is the one who adds to His assemblage. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You Mentor but have No one that you have mentored. Impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe God is trying to tell you something, Kevin. The "x" in the box is probably not what you had in mind. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mentoring
Christ's mentoring is what made the 12 apostles the force they were. Let's see -- that's 12 divided by three (years) and a 100 years later , they tell me there was somewhere around 6 million Christians. But make fun of it if you will. Part of mentoring (read:discipleship) is the giving up of self. It is the carnal mind that makes a game out of sharing the gospel and comparing "success" landmarks. It is Christ's example that really matters, here -- not mine nor yours. the comparisons have been made. You ignored them then -- you would do so again if agreed to play this very immature game. What shall we call this game? "My Sword is bigger than yours?" If we are to pray in our closets -- surely our ministries are not for the purpose of attracting attention to self. I will pray that you move away from self as you continue doing what every you do "for the Lord." After all -- the head count belongs to the Lord for He is the one who adds to His assemblage. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You Mentor but have No one that you have mentored. Impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe God is trying to tell you something, Kevin. The "x" in the box is probably not what you had in mind. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
I trust you know that many are in prayer for you and yours. John -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I do know that with a thankful heart, Iz. Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 26, 2006 10:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster I must take a moment to copy some comforting words that I was reading this week to Erin from The Spiritual World by Sadhu Sundar Singh: One day while I was praying alone, I suddenly found myself surrounded by a great concourse of spirit beings, or I might say that as soon as my spiritual eyes were opened I found myself bowed in the presence of a considerable company of saints and angels. At first I was somewhat abashed, when I saw their bright and glorious state and compared with them my own inferior quality. But I was at once put at ease by their real sympathy and love-inspired friendliness. I had already had the experience of the peace of the presence of God in my life, but the fellowship with these saints added a new and wonderful joy to me. As we conversed together I received from them answers to my questions relating to my difficulties about many problems that puzzled me. My first inquiry was about what happens at the time of dying and about the state of the soul after death. To this (question) they answered, Death is like sleep. There is no pain in the passing over, usually. As an exhausted man is overcome by deep sleep, so comes the sleep of death to man. Death comes so suddenly to many, that it is only with great difficulty that they realize that they have left the material world and entered this world of spirits. Bewildered by the many new and beautiful things that they see around them, they imagine that they are visiting some country or city of the physical world, which they have not seen before. It is only when they have been more fully instructed, and realize that their spiritual body is different from their former material body, that they allow that they have, in fact, been transferred from the material world to the realm of spirits. .Usually at the time of death the body gradually loses its power of feeling. It has no pain, but is simply overcome by a sense of drowsiness. Evil spirits can injure only those in the world who are in like nature to themselves, and then they can do it only to a limited extent. They can, indeed, trouble the righteous, but not without Gods permission. God sometimes does give to satan and his angels permission to tempt and persecute His people, that they may emerge from the trial stronger and better, as when He allowed satan to persecute His servant Job. But from such a trial there is gain rather than loss to the believer. The dying of a believer is frequently the opposite of what happens with an unbeliever. He is often extremely happy, for he sees angels and saintly spirits coming to welcome him. Then, too, his loved ones, who have died before, are permitted to attend his deathbed and to conduct his soul to the spiritual world. On entering the world of spirits he at once feels at home, for not only are his friends about him, but while in the world he had long been preparing himself for this Home by his trust in God and fellowship with Him. Another saint said, To conduct the souls of men from the world is the work of angels. Usually the Christ reveals Himself in the spiritual world to each one in degrees of glory differing in intensity according to the state of each souls spiritual development. But in some cases He Himself comes to a deathbed to welcome His servant, and in love dries his tears, and leads him into Paradise. As a child born into the world finds everything provided for its wants, so does the soul, on entering the spiritual world, find all its wants supplied. Lance, you know we are all praying for a peaceful passing for your dear Mother. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster I do recall that it was not long ago for you, Judy. The prognosis is that she will not pull through. We've left DNR instructions but continue to pray. thanks, Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 26, 2006 09:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster I can empathize with you Lance, it was not that long ago for me. I do hope and pray she will pull through so you can share some more days with her. Any official prognosis yet? jt On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:14:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I spent some time at my mother's bedside reading, praying and talking. She has not opened her eyes. thanks Iz, Lance From: ShieldsFamily Amen, Lance! Hoping all is well with you, izzy From: [EMAIL PROT
Re: [TruthTalk] Mentoring
maybe God is trying to tell you something, Kevin. The "x" in the box is probably not what you had in mind. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Since you are right about everything else, you must be right about this. Sorry I asked. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Your buddy JD, the one who sent you the baseball bat; apparently he was lucid enough to accomplish that; the rest of the time he is obsessed by dualism. On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:28:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Who is Gary Olson? From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LOL! So true as to be hilarious. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor What was dualistic about that comment Gary Olson? It is world affairs that's all... You are truly weird, strange, weird ... Why do you truncate what ppl write and insert your own comments - ultimately making it appear the person said something they did not. Oh I understand - you do the same with God's Words. O' the shame of it. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:33:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: more evidence of jt's implicit dualism On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:49:07 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [while eschatological] Proof of the pudding is always in the eating...[is'nt] Australia..investing workers retirement funds in [biblically questionable] Real Estate also[?]
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth and Freedom (some food for thought)
Good post -- as far as it goes. What you leave out is this : they never fully arrived !!! God remained patient. Kinda like it is right now. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Truth and freedom go hand in hand, but truth will produce freedom only as it is walked in. This ought to be self-evident. We can know something is true, but if we fail to walk in it, what good is it? Its value to us is worthless unless it is walked in. Freedom and truth come to those who press on. Freedom, the kind of freedom that God is involved in bringing us into, comes progressively, not all at once. These are lessons from the Days of Unleavened Bread. It took the Israelites seven days to get to and across the Red Sea. It took them another forty years to get into their own land, into their inheritance, the Promised Land. Their freedom was progressive. There was a time when it began, but if they had never continued on the way, they would never have had their own land, never have had their inheritance, never have been free. This is a large part of the object lesson: We have to continue. If we continue, then we will truly be a disciple. We will understand the truth, and the truth will make us free. The truth of God shows us the real values of life because it shows us what we are to give our life to.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Can't make disciples without mentoring - it is impossible. Apparently you do not know this -- I'm guessing you don't do it or you wouldn't make fun of the idea. jd jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Go ye into all the world and Mentor the Gospel! Who have you mentored? Do you have any men?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tower power -- nothing much to report in terms of results. Protest-evangelism -- ditto. Mentor evangeliism -- it is the method of historical record --- how he church grew from 12 to several million within its first 100 years of life. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So tell us about it. Results?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Results that combine both commands, "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Results? #3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM .C>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & amp; amp;g t; > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[
RE: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
Who is Gary Olson? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LOL! So true as to be hilarious. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:04 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster What was dualistic about that comment Gary Olson? It is world affairs that's all... You are truly weird, strange, weird ... Why do you truncate what ppl write and insert your own comments - ultimately making it appear the person said something they did not. Oh I understand - you do the same with God's Words. O' the shame of it. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:33:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: more evidence of jt's implicit dualism On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:49:07 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [while eschatological] Proof of the pudding is always in the eating...[is'nt] Australia..investing workers retirement funds in [biblically questionable] Real Estate also[?]
Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms
In the past two days, some 28 posts similar to this one in terms of content. Number 29 is only a few minutes away. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> O that is right I remember, now. You said two door & Blue[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made the mistake of answering this line of questioning in detail, before. No point in doing it again. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tell us about some of your AMAZING sucess stories! Have you discipled any other Bishops? Who are they? I am so excited waiting for the exciting stories! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I certainly think you qualify as the house pro on zero. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I knew a guy that got so bothered dealing with cult members, in frustration he said "let them go to hell" He meant it and so many today might as well, since their Evagelistic efforts amount to ZER0 The new & increasingly popular program of evangelism is the HOTtest thing. Based on the Japanese Model of MSmanagement it is called DOing N0thing! That is JD at the controls. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 still = 0! Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What's that Kevin "delusory evangelism" or one of the three below?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:25:50 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> For enquiring minds:> JD chose plan B> > ZER0 Evangelism> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > > > > > We have at leat three general patterns represented here on TT: > > 1. Drive-by or protest evangelism. > > 2. Ivory tower evangelism.> > 3. Mentor evangelism. > > I have made my choice.> > Enough said. > > jd> > > __> 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.> > Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
tower power -- nothing much to report in terms of results. Protest-evangelism -- ditto. Mentor evangeliism -- it is the method of historical record --- how he church grew from 12 to several million within its first 100 years of life. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So tell us about it. Results?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Results that combine both commands, "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Results? #3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM .C>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & amp;g t; > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> cr
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Judy -- I do know what you believe. Let me make something clear since our time together is quickly coming to an end. "Carnal" applies to you, IMO, because of what I see as a reliance on your own brand of intellectualism. As a result, you own the most unusual collection of theological opinions I have ever seen. On the good side, you are one of the most imaginative theologians I know something I actually respect. It is what I see in Barth and the others. what is most difficult is your attitude during a discussion. You simply do not know how to disagree without the personal assault. On other forums, I am not nearly as aggressive as I am here -- but there simply is no other way to be when in the presence of you, Linda, Kev and even David (at times). I know that you will not agree with any of my view expressed above -- but most of what I have said is, IMO, a good report of you. Finally, if your posts do not tell us what you believe, your purpose for writing is suspect. Since I can read, I do know what you believe. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I know enough to recognize the real when I see it and so do my BSF buddies You JD, don't know what I believe, nor can you evaluate my BSF buddies Quit being so presumptuous, it is not a godly trait On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:26:45 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Refer to Matt 28 19ff and Mark 16:15 ff -- and stop prestending that you alone understand scripture. Your BSF buddies do not think much of your theology, that is for sure. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" Aberrent theologies make little cookie cutter disciples just like Lance and Bill Only Jesus' Words make disciples that look like Him On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:46:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Results that combine both commands, "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Results? #3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Sa
Re: [TruthTalk] correction - wife Kathy and grandbaby delaney
Left to right -- Chad - the Lawyer; Julie - Miss everything in HighSchool and worship leader at her church; Russ - worship leader , business owner -- Nancy, the youngest, worship leader and new Mom for the second time. James, the doctor son is not pictured. I raised Russ and James after the divorce. We are all best of friends. I am most fortunate. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Definitely cute JD But where are you in all this and which girl in the group is Julie? On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:05:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [TruthTalk] four of the five smithsons
sent earlier -- [TruthTalk] re: pictures They took my picture right after I found out that I had received yet another post from Judy Taylor. Note the blank look on my roughedly handsome face. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nice looking kids, they must take after their Mom :) Where are you JD? On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:03:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Refer to Matt 28 19ff and Mark 16:15 ff -- and stop prestending that you alone understand scripture. Your BSF buddies do not think much of your theology, that is for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" Aberrent theologies make little cookie cutter disciples just like Lance and Bill Only Jesus' Words make disciples that look like Him On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:46:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Results that combine both commands, "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Results? #3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .C OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & amp;g t; > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> wo
Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms
I made the mistake of answering this line of questioning in detail, before. No point in doing it again. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tell us about some of your AMAZING sucess stories! Have you discipled any other Bishops? Who are they? I am so excited waiting for the exciting stories! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I certainly think you qualify as the house pro on zero. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I knew a guy that got so bothered dealing with cult members, in frustration he said "let them go to hell" He meant it and so many today might as well, since their Evagelistic efforts amount to ZER0 The new & increasingly popular program of evangelism is the HOTtest thing. Based on the Japanese Model of MSmanagement it is called DOing N0thing! That is JD at the controls. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 still = 0! Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What's that Kevin "delusory evangelism" or one of the three below?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:25:50 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> For enquiring minds:> JD chose plan B> > ZER0 Evangelism> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > > > > > We have at leat three general patterns represented here on TT: > > 1. Drive-by or protest evangelism. > > 2. Ivory tower evangelism.> > 3. Mentor evangelism. > > I have made my choice.> > Enough said. > > jd> > > __> 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.> > Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Results that combine both commands, "preach the gospel" and "make disciples/" jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Results? #3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .C OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > &g t; > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Me s sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailt
Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms
Well, I certainly think you qualify as the house pro on zero. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I knew a guy that got so bothered dealing with cult members, in frustration he said "let them go to hell" He meant it and so many today might as well, since their Evagelistic efforts amount to ZER0 The new & increasingly popular program of evangelism is the HOTtest thing. Based on the Japanese Model of MSmanagement it is called DOing N0thing! That is JD at the controls. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 still = 0! Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What's that Kevin "delusory evangelism" or one of the three below?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:25:50 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> For enquiring minds:> JD chose plan B> > ZER0 Evangelism> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > > > > > We have at leat three general patterns represented here on TT: > > 1. Drive-by or protest evangelism. > > 2. Ivory tower evangelism.> > 3. Mentor evangelism. > > I have made my choice.> > Enough said. > > jd> > > __> 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.> > Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Judy is "implicitly" a liar. Do you get the point!! -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] edits: myth (the statement of a man of God inspired by the Spirit of God employed as feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Like I said -- and it can be proven -- you three can dish it out but you cry and whine everytime the tables are reversed. You (each of the three of you ) have judged myself, Lance, Bill, Debbie even, and G as if you were the dispenser of grace. You could not get more hypocritical.
I do not "fear" the Lord if you mean "scared to death and shaking." Apparently, this is something only Radical Fundies do. I "fear" as in "respect" the Lord, knowing that perfect love (God's love) drives out "scared to death and shaking."
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not crying or whining JD; you are a master of the misperception that's for sure
and I don't look to you as a dispenser of God's grace; you can't get anyone in, but you can
exclude them if you are anything like those prophets who travel over land and sea to make
the people they minister to twice the sons of hell that they are. I hear a lot of talk of love
and liberty from you but nothing about the fear of God or His righteous judgment.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:18:57 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I said exactly what I had in mind, Judy. A "carnal babe" is still someone made alive in Christ. "Jezebel spirit" does not define you from my perspective. It is funny, to me, that you [all] can dish it out ("unsaved, messenger boys of Satan, of the Accuser, a product of the hell you preach," and on and on) but you cry and whine when someone turns the tables. At least, I have not excluded any of you from God's grace -- something each of you have done to me. Grow up. jd
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why don't you go ahead and say it out loud JD
Judy has a Jezebel spirit - I've been around that kind of thinking before
and know from whence it comes. Also your particular area of expertise is not
spiritual discernment JD.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:27:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shucks !!
And, did you note that us "liberals" do not agree on everything? One is not the puppet of the other.
For my money, you are the poster girl for "carnal Christian" if same includes "rebellions" as an indicator. jd
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't hold your breath waiting JD:
You have never been open to anything I would have to say - when TT goes down I will
know it is time to call it a day.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any.
When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet?
The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking
it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of
others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with
energy.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence.
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently.
jd
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard.
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder
about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Grant
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
I said exactly what I had in mind, Judy. A "carnal babe" is still someone made alive in Christ. "Jezebel spirit" does not define you from my perspective. It is funny, to me, that you [all] can dish it out ("unsaved, messenger boys of Satan, of the Accuser, a product of the hell you preach," and on and on) but you cry and whine when someone turns the tables. At least, I have not excluded any of you from God's grace -- something each of you have done to me. Grow up.
jd
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why don't you go ahead and say it out loud JD
Judy has a Jezebel spirit - I've been around that kind of thinking before
and know from whence it comes. Also your particular area of expertise is not
spiritual discernment JD.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:27:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shucks !!
And, did you note that us "liberals" do not agree on everything? One is not the puppet of the other.
For my money, you are the poster girl for "carnal Christian" if same includes "rebellions" as an indicator. jd
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't hold your breath waiting JD:
You have never been open to anything I would have to say - when TT goes down I will
know it is time to call it a day.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any.
When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet?
The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking
it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of
others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with
energy.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence.
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently.
jd
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard.
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder
about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing.
Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all).
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
The Canadian Guanatamo
Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
Are you hating an identifiable group?
And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; )
Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?
Justice in Canaduh
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
passed his second year of incarce
RE: [TruthTalk] I just spoke with my mother
Our prayers are with you. John -- Original message -- From: "Joanna Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, our prayers are with you, with her and your family. Talk with you soon Joanna From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: Subject: [TruthTalk] I just spoke with my motherDate: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:37:04 -0500 She's in a home. She's 88. They were checking her vital signs as we spoke and, are about to transport her to a hospital in Windsor, Ontario. I await a call from my brother. Your prayers for Ruth May would be appreciated, thanks, Lance-- "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] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Ya got me !! -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why is it that you only call women rebellious; and only when they disagree with you? Your masochistic roots are exposed. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:27 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Shucks !! And, did you note that us "liberals" do not agree on everything? One is not the puppet of the other. For my money, you are the poster girl for "carnal Christian" if same includes "rebellions" as an indicator. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't hold your breath waiting JD: You have never been open to anything I would have to say - when TT goes down I will know it is time to call it a day. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet? The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with energy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Where did you go to school ? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Great idea, jd!!! And how about everyone who wants their child to grow up to be a son of hell should send their children to the local government schools? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:08 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Here's an idea -- maybe the church could actually do its job !! You know, instead of paying the local school district to do it. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Willia ms on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Mes sage - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actua lly Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 20 06 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Sub
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Shucks !! And, did you note that us "liberals" do not agree on everything? One is not the puppet of the other. For my money, you are the poster girl for "carnal Christian" if same includes "rebellions" as an indicator. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't hold your breath waiting JD: You have never been open to anything I would have to say - when TT goes down I will know it is time to call it a day. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet? The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with energy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutiona
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
God did !! In 26 seconds OR LESS... or maybe 13.5 million. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Who spoke the worlds into existence? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well He (Jesus) was and He wasn't. From: Judy Taylor Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none o
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David (often but not always) 2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does her best work at home and not in the real world. 3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others) We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not the same. you in your home and me in my world, where I live, where people see me everyday. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there are christian teachers in the system (and there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it There are also unbelievers in different churches these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has the responsibility to search it out for themselves. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Me s sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> >
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my e-mail. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And why is it present? Not enough power emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet? The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with energy. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Here's an idea -- maybe the church could actually do its job !! You know, instead of paying the local school district to do it. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solution: teach false theories. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actua lly Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sen
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
LOL we're talking serious humor. I am laughing too hard to do anything but go and put the coffee on. Back in a few. -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> How long Oh David, how long? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:32 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Me s sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >&g t; > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthT
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
Me, a shotgun, five weeks, a trot line, lots of dead bluejays (their breast meat is the same as dove), all the wild mushrooms, onions, clover, young cattails (looks a bit like celery) I could eat -- watching the cute little Humming Birds bite and devour one another -- probably the meanest little animal I have ever sat watched (hey, it beat T.V.) -- you remember that story ? sure glad I speak the truth (in love, of course.) :--) -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I believe he's still in his neanderthal days? What WAS that story 'bout eatin' birds in the wilderness for a year or so? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 07:30 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. Was that in your pre-Neanderthal days, or after? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:25 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on a nd on If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Linda -- politically, I am a rightwinger -- but who went to war for what reason? And, did you miss Lnace's good point? What kind of fit will you pitch when the Muslim population wins a court fight to teach their view of whats happening now in our schools !!?? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I refuse to live in fear, but rather in faith. The difference between the > Left and Right. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:23 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Sikhs are permitted to wear 'sacred' daggers to school. The RCMP allow > turbans over traditional head gear.The Muslim creation story is in the Q'ran > > (soon to be taught at a school near you). Think long term, Iz. When you > choose shallowness of thought you become > > . > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] DSFAMILY.COM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 07:15 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So, in a public school you prefer that untruth be taught long-term. > > Hmm > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:08 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > In a public school. Think 'long term', Iz. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:37 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> S o, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be > >> true > >> you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some > >> of > >> us aren't following your logic? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> IZ:No, I would not. > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> Dodging the question, as usual. iz > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > >>> > >>> . > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > you > would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > the > words? Probably got it comin'. > > Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > creationism) > > > - Original Message - > &g t;>>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's > > left. > > Pathetic IMO. izzy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > Still no. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, > >> Lance? > >> JD? > >> izzy > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its presence. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly also. Only the new men make it because only they are fit for the Kingdom. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor
RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
With man , it is impossible but with God, it is possible. Your illustration is more to the point that we are saved by the miracle of God apart from our works. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perhaps a poor analogy. But we didnt know how to miraculously turn the old house into a new one .we werent likely to live long enough. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:18 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see thi s as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Scary to the max. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Mes sage - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >> > - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Willia
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
Make that 5 posts. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You JD have rejected substance unless conformed to your liking and by then it is no longer substance but mixture. So what would be the point?? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:33:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is absolutely content free talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what goes on in your your posts. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on
If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary. He was there!!! On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the abov
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march Isnt that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference between religion and being born again of the Holy Spirit. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or bl asphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated,
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Of course. But that is not really the issue. -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So IYO it is better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I see . izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 &g t; >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > > DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > > believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > > you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes!
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
I have been aware of such musings, myself. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the accumulating evidence suggests, certain Words do reveal precisely many monotonous mutual monolithic musings mangling males On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:39:37 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mealy mouthed male. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:37 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism ..mutual mouthy male mashing On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (feminists' rhetoric) || On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..Let God be true and every man a liar - ..Funny how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Lack of Sleep Led to Dinosaurs' Demise
Science is great -- but this is a good illustration of just how ridiculous even scientist can get. So it only took the Big Lizard how many millions of years to say "Good night and good luck?" -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And I thought it was just because they were too big to fit on the ark! J izzy 'Lack of deep sleep led to dinosaurs' demise' RHIANNON EDWARD DINOSAURS were most likely killed off because they never got a good night's sleep, scientists have claimed. Giant meteorites from outer space, fire storms, tidal waves and an ice age have all been suggested by experts to explain the demise of T-Rex and other giant dinosaurs. However, the latest theory to explain their extinction claims they did not survive because their reptilian sleeping patterns meant their brains did not learn new skills properly. Unlike mammals and birds, reptiles are unable to experience slow wave sleep, the type of sleep believed to be responsible for boosting memories, especially those connected to performing new tasks. As a result, reptiles are much more limited in the type of complex behaviour they can experience than other animals such as mammals and birds. The implication of new research by Niels Rattenborg, of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, is that the inability of dinosaurs - which are ancestors of modern-day reptiles - to experience slow wave sleep may have been one of the reasons why they became extinct. Slow wave - or deep - sleep leads to enhancements in both learning and physical performance. It effectively shuts down the parts of the brain that have learned new skills and allows this learning to become consolidated without interruption. Without this crucial ability it could be that, when the earth experienced huge climatic changes towards the end of the era of the dinosaurs, they were unable to pick up sufficient new tricks to learn their way out of extinction. The research also shows that, although birds and mammals appear to have developed the same brain structures and, importantly, the same series of connections between structures that allow slow wave sleep to take place, these developments must have happened independently. Despite the common ancestry of birds and reptiles among the dinosaurs, regarding sleep at least it is in fact birds and mammals that have more in common in terms of brain structure and function. The paper is published by Elsevier in its journal Brain Research Bulletin.
RE: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms
We have at leat three general patterns represented here on TT: 1. Drive-by or protest evangelism. 2. Ivory tower evangelism. 3. Mentor evangelism. I have made my choice. Enough said. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular world to be responsible -- I don't. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed something to be true > you would NOT want children to be taught about it. Can you see why some of > us aren't following your logic? iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > IZ:No, I would not. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > & gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz. > > > > . > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, > >> you > >> would want it taught in schools. You said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those > >> the > >> words? Probably got it comin'. > >> > >> Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. > >> creationism) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> So you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's > >>> left. > >>> Pathetic IMO. izzy > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> Still no. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> To: > >>> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > >>> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >>> > >>> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? > JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. > > DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you > > believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > > you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple > > yikes) > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> Lance wrote: > >&g t;> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then > >>> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > >> > >> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought > >> to > >> be > >
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys
Amen and thank you. John -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 24, 2006 21:02 Subject: Goodbye, and thanks for all the ichthys I was afraid this was too long, but David's leisurely post has given me courage to blather a little, like the parting guest who suddenly becomes talkative in the doorway. Im glad for the time I spent on TT, even though I left. I did learn stuff, especially early on as I encountered some ideas for the first time; certain posts, especially at the beginning, opened windows for me. Even some of the more plodding discussions were an occasion for clarifying my own thinking or, alternatively, fuzzifying it if it was a little too sharp! And that may have been the best benefit of TT. I remember being surprised at the very beginning by the aggressivenessa newish thing for me among believers even though Ive moved in a wide variety of Christian circles. The exposure wasnt all bad--it made me a bit more assertive and thicker-skinned, and forced me to recognize how easily I can be provoked to snarkiness myself. But I often felt sad after an exchange. Sometimes, on the other hand, I was completely taken aback by the generosity and affirmation in people's responses. So I hope that if the experience has made me less naive about the behaviour of Christians, it hasn't gone so far as to make me cynical. I still think I might have misunderstood the culture of TT...I'm not very astute that way. < /FONT> Ive seen something of the serious limitations of e-mail, and yet I feel like Ive met real people. I found every character on TT interesting and memorable, and enjoyed the different flavours and the occasional anecdotal glimpses into peoples lives. I'd love to meet you all face to face. In the eschaton if not before! Thank you, Lance, for introducing me to TT and encouraging me to participate--an act so beautifully typical of you. But I especially want to thank David: you relentlessly engaged everybody, no matter how intractable, and even at your crazy-makingest you had the best manners of all--or at least made the best show of manners! J To me, the act of keeping this forum so wide open as long as you did, and the latitude you have given people to be themselves, show a broadness above and beyond your words that commands my respect. Just to irritate some of you, I was going to finish with an excerpt quoting Bonhoeffer on how we reflect Christ to each other, from the chapter I've just finished working on in Victor's book. Instead, here's something less lofty, which for me is a kind of parable for TT: I'm watching my husband gently heave our sleeping youngest son up from the living room couch where he has repaired in frustration at his brother's endless, irritating snores. He had taken his pillow and blankets there after incrementally severe degrees of poking and bedshaking had failed to correct his brother's breathing. But now he falls forward into his dad's arms, willingly allows himself to be moved, and wakes up as he is conducted by hands on his shoulders back to his own bed. He crawls in beneath the bunk of his brother who snores impenitently on, and sett les back to sleep. This is repeated two or three times a week, but is always forgotten in the morning, and neither brother will tolerate talk of separate bedrooms. Open hands, everybody, and Jude 24 & 25. Love Debbie --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order
z -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why? What do they do for you? It's all about him, his thoughts, his opinions, the movies he sees, etc. etc. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: :-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES! From: Kevin Deegan Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is absolutely content free talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what goes on in your your posts. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something other than what you have been proffering on TT so far So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology and that the results belong to you also?. jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on
Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative chit-chat. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written? Because JD says it does not make sense to him? On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the above. but it was enough. Use the Bible as a battle ground AND YOU WILL CONDEMN YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL. Get the educator to admit that his world of knowing is not that much different than the Christian's and you have common ground with which to discuss. You never fight your opponent in his backyard !! Since TT is almost over - one more story. My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job. Her boss was an atheist. She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process. "Dad, how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?" "Julie, you don't even try. Do this -- explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
Just quoting your words while mocking Lance -- And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, kd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you trying? Why would my feelings be hurt?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So file a claim ! Or are you afraid the judge might not see it as libel ?!! (I am there with the humor -- have I hurt your feelings yet?) -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Lack of understanding is just laziness of thought and lack of effort. Fits the legal definition of LibelJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just one more example which proves the fact that you have not ever understood what any of us have been saying. Not really. I know I am not into Dominion Theology and I don't hear it coming from Iz, Kevin, or David either. So you are out there Lance, possibly in the next orbit to Gary. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:59:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin & David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a conti
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
So file a claim ! Or are you afraid the judge might not see it as libel ?!! (I am there with the humor -- have I hurt your feelings yet?) -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Lack of understanding is just laziness of thought and lack of effort. Fits the legal definition of LibelJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just one more example which proves the fact that you have not ever understood what any of us have been saying. Not really. I know I am not into Dominion Theology and I don't hear it coming from Iz, Kevin, or David either. So you are out there Lance, possibly in the next orbit to Gary. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:59:22 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin & David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to s
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
Exact - a - mundo !! -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Can't make the old man act new, anymore than you can make a Mannequin dance Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me wonder about you and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things become new. On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases, the speech that is suppressed conflicts with the Canadian government's official multicultu
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
I was responding to this jewel: violent thinking is not violent action > And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway? -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If I am talking like Hill & North it must be a typo or More Likely a Parity Error on your end![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one's talking about "thought police," Kev. If you want to talk like Hill and North - expect the rest of us who listen to you to think you are of the same ilk, denials not withstanding. That's all I am saying. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > violent thinking is not violent action > And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway? > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > IFO can accept this self-characterization. But when your words sound > > like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in > > your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named > > above. > > > > jd > > > > -- Original message -- > > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you > > agree > > > with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) > > > Which is it Lance? I do not understa nd such behavior it seems > > > irrational to me. > > > > > > I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. > > > > > > Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of > > > MccarthyISM. > > > The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal > > > thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. > > > Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! > > > > > > The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. > > > You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the > > right to > > > violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! > > > > > > --- Lance Muir wrote: > > > > > > > Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no > > matter > > > > who asks? > > > > > > > > So, K evin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what > > you > > > > do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder > > that > > > > SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere > > else! > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking to me, Gary North? > > > > > > > > Lance Muir wrote: > > > > My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a > > > > civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a > > > > > > moral society is an improvement on an immoral one.. Granted that > & gt; ; some > > > > attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, > > by > > > > the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on > > > > > > that which opposes the foregoing. > > > > > > > > Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine > > > > > > 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? > > I do > > > > believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that > > upon > > > > which you focus (signage wise and all). > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > < BR>& gt; > > > The Canadian Guanatamo > > > > Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! > > > > Are you hating an identifiable group? > > > > And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as > > > > an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) > > > > Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? > > > > > > > > Justice in Canaduh > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ > > > > > > passed his second year of incarceration without charge > > > > Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to > > > > know all the evidence against him. > > > > Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related > > > > > > > > Canadian Human Rights Commission "The trut h in some absolute > > > > sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in > > which > > > > the message is delivered and heard which will determine the > > effect > > > > that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the > > truth > > > > or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it > > is > > > > understood by the recipient." > > > > > > > > Kevin Deegan wrote: > > > > Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think > > > > Gary North would be proud of you folks. > > > > He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you > > > > folks have actually suceeded! > > > > > > > > Robert
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
actually, that is not true. But go with it !! Who cares. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It goes beyond taking responsibility Judy. You have been accussed of having the same murderous spirit as that bunch of Dominionists and Reformed Papists!Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But then you don't really know that upon which we focus do you Lance? I for one do not take on responsibility for every decision made by the US Gov't, Congress, Senate, and GWB and I have released our children to run their own lives. I've discovered a funny thing Lance; you know the only one I can influence in a way that changes things is "me" How about that now ... Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes the foregoing. Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and all). From: Kevin Deegan The Canadian Guanatamo Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! Are you hating an identifiable group? And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? Justice in Canaduh http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ passed his second year of incarceration without charge Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against him. Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient.Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think Gary North would be proud of you folks. He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually suceeded! Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, for your thoughts! You Cant Say ThatCanadian thought police on the march. By David E. Bernstein I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly minor and understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed constitutional muster. Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of sexual activity including material that the First Amendment would protect in the United States was deprived of constitutional protection to protect women from discrimination. Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, the inevitable result of allowing these initial speech restrictions has been the gradual but significant growth of censorship and suppression of civil liberties across Canada. In many cases
Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on
David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I think. I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject. There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those times. Science and creation is not one of your strong points -- at least not this time around. I suspect that you are distracted with other things. To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence - I say. But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said. Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. N0 sir-re. It took time for them to move into place -- upwards of several hours !! Com'on big D !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! Look -- if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists !! I have seen this happen many times. Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school. All of those one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered to be "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we say?" There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class !! You should have heard that next phone call the next evening !! Awesome. How did I know it would work ? I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class -- none of it survived except the above. but it was enough. Use the Bible as a battle ground AND YOU WILL CONDEMN YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL. Get the educator to admit that his world of knowing is not that much different than the Christian's and you have common ground with which to discuss. You never fight your opponent in his backyard !! Since TT is almost over - one more story. My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job. Her boss was an atheist. She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process. "Dad, how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?" "Julie, you don't even try. Do this -- explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for their beliefs and then ask him, 'Bruce, don't you think you should at least examine what it was they died for ?" He told her he was prepared for any response but that one !! That opened a door that was slammed shut two weeks later in his drowning death at the lake. Was there light in life because of that talk? I like to think there was. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that which one has just witnessed over the last week or so. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this. I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less tha
Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order
:-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES! - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 06:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine & Contingent Order Was it a BIG Bang?Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head against the proverbial wall. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I have said. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. Adam and Eve were not created with the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? Take your Bible, open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years ago. Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Mann instituted public education as an alternative to the existing private and religious system of the day. That is what I am talking about. What the Puritans did in the 1600's is NOT what I am talking about. I am telling you that public education started in Mass. as a reaction to "religious" and private systems of the day. That is how I remember my history on this. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Exactly right that Horace Mann introduced humanism in place of Christianity in the public education system. Until him the Bible was the basic textbook. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David MillerSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:56 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The history of public education is a little more complicated than this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available to those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in because the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace Mann, etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a melting pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public education for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and focusing upon the knowledge that was more common among the different religious sects. What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came from Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came about through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists, the Puritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through the efforts of men like Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism to the Unitarian church. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian education. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science' reflects neither. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it, and its place in the history of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric if you like. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching t
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
No one's talking about "thought police," Kev. If you want to talk like Hill and North - expect the rest of us who listen to you to think you are of the same ilk, denials not withstanding. That's all I am saying. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > violent thinking is not violent action > And who gets elected to be the thought police anyway? > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > IFO can accept this self-characterization. But when your words sound > > like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in > > your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named > > above. > > > > jd > > > > -- Original message -- > > From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you > > agree > > > with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) > > > Which is it Lance? I do not understa nd such behavior it seems > > > irrational to me. > > > > > > I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. > > > > > > Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of > > > MccarthyISM. > > > The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal > > > thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. > > > Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! > > > > > > The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. > > > You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the > > right to > > > violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! > > > > > > --- Lance Muir wrote: > > > > > > > Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no > > matter > > > > who asks? > > > > > > > > So, K evin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what > > you > > > > do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder > > that > > > > SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere > > else! > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking to me, Gary North? > > > > > > > > Lance Muir wrote: > > > > My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a > > > > civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a > > > > > > moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that > > ; some > > > > attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, > > by > > > > the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on > > > > > > that which opposes the foregoing. > > > > > > > > Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine > > > > > > 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? > > I do > > > > believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that > > upon > > > > which you focus (signage wise and all). > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kevin Deegan > > > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > > > Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 > > > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt; > > > The Canadian Guanatamo > > > > Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! > > > > Are you hating an identifiable group? > > > > And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as > > > > an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) > > > > Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? > > > > > > > > Justice in Canaduh > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ > > > > > > passed his second year of incarceration without charge > > > > Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to > > > > know all the evidence against him. > > > > Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related > > > > > > > > Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute > > > > sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in > > which > > > > the message is delivered and heard which will determine the > > effect > > > > that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the > > truth > > > > or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it > > is > > > > understood by the recipient." > > > > > > > > Kevin Deegan wrote: > > > > Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think > > > > Gary North would be proud of you folks. > > > > He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you > > > > folks have actually suceeded! > > > > > > > > Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the > > > > University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian > > > > th eocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would > > > > describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. > > > > Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not > > tolerated." > > > > > >
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
My answer is Lance's. In view of that , I will interject this comment -- your alternative is not the only consideration. I do not want the secular system giving review to matters of faith. Nothing good would be accomplished -- and high school kids, by and large, do not "believe in evolution" anyway. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left. > Pathetic IMO. izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > Still no. > > > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? > > izzy > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it > > then, > > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > > either. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > >> Williams > >> said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > >> > >> So how have I mischaracterized him? > >> > >> David Miller > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >> David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE > >> YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > >> David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, > >> Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to > >> you > >> and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple > >> yikes) > >> - Original Message - > >> F rom: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > >> > >> > >>> Lance wrote: > If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then > you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > >>> > >>> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to > >>> be > >>> separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have > >>> submitted > >>> unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. > >>> > >>> Lance wrote: > He is a brother in Christ who believes > differently than you on some matters. > Now, if that makes him what you say > then, that makes you what I say. > >>> > >>> He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The > >>> moniker > >>> was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our > >>> Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, > >>> assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in > >>> Christ, > >>> then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other > >>> believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will > >>> continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the > >>> acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was > >>> very > >>> damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the > >>> Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the > >>> acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but > >>> not > >>> from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor > >>> Rowland > >>> Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. > >>> > >>> David Miller > >>> > >>> -- > >>> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > >>> know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > >>> http://www.InnGlory.org > >>> > >>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >&g t; "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
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Excellent ! jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No, I wish I could be with them every day to do that, but I only get to teach them when I visit them out of state. The girls have been reading since they were four years old and are SO smart!!! (Im not biased, either! J ) Since age 6 you could ask Gretchen to read any book, chapter and verse in the Bible, and she would pick it up, find the place, and happily read it to you without a problem. They are taught mostly by their mom and some by their dad. Their mother got a masters degree in education with the intent of becoming a homeschooling Mom. My (younger or two grown-up kids) son has his masters in aeronautical engineering with a minor in German, and now flies for Fed-Ex and teaches pilot training one week/mo nth in the Reserves. They can teach anything a school aged child might need to learn I think. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:04 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Are you the teacher? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most of His day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a si
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Hats off to you , Linda, on this one. It starts with our families. We can yell and scream at each other, here on TT, but some of our decisions can damn our children. Your patience and trust in the Lord is above the call. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jd, I remember when my oldest son told me (when he was in college) that he was no longer a Believer. I calmly told him that he was going through a good and necessary stage of life in which he was rejecting what he had been taught as a child so that he could re-evaluate everything for himself. I assured him that when he had completed this task that he would find that what he had been taught about his faith as a child would not only prove to be true, but would be his very own, internalized belief. He is now a Christian, although he does not usually attend church although his wife usually does. He is more of a solitary person, like his father. I would appreciate prayers for his growth in the area of fellowship. He is as fine a young man as ever I have met. I have learned much from him over the years, and thoroughly enjoy every moment I get to spend with him. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:01 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical does not mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
If "it" refers to creationism , you didn't read my last paragraph. And I do believe in [my brand of ] creationism --- still don't want it taught in the secular school system. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You didnt answer the question. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:41 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK into the general population. Even an old earth belief, IMO, does not present enough time for evolution to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro - no. I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a radical and atheistic biology prof. These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in class. They semed to work. Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a concept could be implemented. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> T o: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation ism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe , > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri ple > > yikes) > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> Lance wrote: > >>> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then > >>> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > >> > >> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be > >> separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have > >> submitted > >> unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. > >> > >> Lance wrote: > >>> He is a brother in Chr ist who believes > >>> differently than you on some matters. > >>> Now, if that makes him what you say > >>> then, that makes you what I say. > >> &g t; >> He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker > >> was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our > >> Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, > >> assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, > >> then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other > >> believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will > >> continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the > >> acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was > >> very > >> damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the > >> ; Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the > >> acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but > >>
Re: [TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye
can you transfer ownership and just move on?? jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, it is Friday. Time to say our goodbyes. > > I will leave the list up through the weekend to give time for lurkers to > catch up and perhaps make their final post. Please bring the other > conversations to a close and focus on saying your final farewells. I will > start with this one, but I plan to send some more posts where I talk about > past members of TruthTalk and some of my impressions, for good or for bad. > In this post, I want to talk about TruthTalk in general. > > In my opinion, much of the difficulty of TruthTalk these last several years > has been related to a problem described by the proverb, FAMILIARITY BREEDS > CONTEMPT. I have seen this same phenomena in home churches too. When a > small group of people become so thoroughly familia r with each other that > much of what others would say become somewhat predictable, people become > more free to speak their mind and tend to focus more upon faults than > strengths in the other person. Marriages often illustrate this same > difficulty. The time frame for this seems to start at around 4 years, and > within 10 years, it becomes rather entrenched. Those groups that tend to be > focused upon itself exhibit more of this tendency than groups that tend to > reach out and pull in fresh people. > > On TruthTalk, there was a time when that polarizing of groups became rather > noticeable. There came to be the liberals versus the conservatives, which > eventually turned into the liberals versus the fundamentalists. When this > first came to light, I questioned the group whether we should encourage this > kind of sectarian dialogue. Several on the list thought it was natural > human nature and fine not only to allow it but encoura ge it. Interestingly, > some of those most outspoken for this perspective are no longer on the list. > My personal judgment in hindsight is that any kind of sectarianism like this > is counter productive for good discussion. What happens is that people > speak more from bias and emotion rather than engage in a teamwork of > discovery. People tended to work harder on putting the other side in their > place rather than trying to hear whether or not there was even a grain of > truth in what was being said. > > Overall, I have appreciated TruthTalk very much. It has been a source of > motivation for me to study issues that I might otherwise have left > untouched. My heart has been warmed by many who have posted here, and my > mind has been enriched with a diversity of viewpoints to consider and > examine. Some on TruthTalk have steered my thinking in certain directions > that I might otherwise not have gone. Some have blessed me by pointin g me > to resources and individuals that have previously been outside of my realm > of study. In some future posts, I will discuss some of the members of > TruthTalk who have most impacted me and how they influenced me. > > 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] Judy Taylor - kind of a surprise !!
http://www.starboundranch.com/
Re: [TruthTalk] and you thought it couldn't get better
http://www.millerformayor.ca/
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
Who was the violent one? Rushdooney or his son-in-law? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sandlin10.html jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So you learned something. > He was a leader in the Dominion/Reconstruction movement I believe he > was also Rushdoony's Son in Law. > > The real direction of the movement is slavery or Stoning for those it > decides are not right with their concept of God. > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that > > has been written on TT. > > > > jd > > > > -- Original message -- > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. > > - Original Message - > > From: Kevin Deegan > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] y.org > > Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bible N Sword! > > > > Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed > > Catholic Taliban) > > This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually > > have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. > > > > "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is > > literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock > > literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, > > which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the > > head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the > > final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is > > therefore integral to the commandment against murd er. Gary North > > > > The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to > > take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, > > it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter > > is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the > > family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing > > God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital > > crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North > > > > The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain > > exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit > > publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His > > Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - > > must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. > > Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North writ ten from New Geneva > > > > Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other > > cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as > > the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North > > > > Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty > > and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's > > blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has > > abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds > > CALVINistic to me) > > > > There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile > > wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation > > of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. > > Gary "we are the replacement" North > > > > What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a > > strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North > > > > " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the > > contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God > > commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on > > ourselves. Gary North > > > > The battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between > > fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of > > the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is > > between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among > > Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. > > - > > From: Kevin Deegan > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > Is K D a pseudonym for Gary North? > > > > > > "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution > > (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary North > > (comments added) > > Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should > > be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to > > submit...must be denied citizenship". > > > > Reformed Baptist? LOL > > Baptist Reconstruction? LOL > > Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL > > Baptist DominionISM? LOL > > Baptist Pope ROTFL > > > > RC Pope Calvin > > Reformed Presbyterian > > Bring in the kingdom Presbytery & JD > > Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans, Reformed
Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march
IFO can accept this self-characterization. But when your words sound like North's or Paul Hill's, they allow others to see a similarity in your thoughts as compared to the violent thinking of those named above. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First you accuse me of being Gary North and then you tell me you agree > with my critique of his philosophy? (see your post below) > Which is it Lance? I do not understand such behavior it seems > irrational to me. > > I absolutely am not a ROMAN Papist. > > Seems to me the Canadian Gov't is on a witch hunt the likes of > MccarthyISM. > The State of Canada has become the Potentate on a hunt for illegal > thoughts and will enFORCE by threat of law and public censure. > Only diff McCarthy was right the US had been infiltrated! > > The only force I believe in is the Force of God's words. > You have the right to believe anything you want and I have the right to > violently disagree with words NO SWORDS! > > --- Lance M uir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Did you know that 'he' will not repeat that infamous line no matter > > who asks? > > > > So, Kevin, I undertake to write more than 1 line and, you do what you > > do so well; simply give up a smart-ass reply. It's little wonder that > > SPers are not well received either in Salt Lake or, anywhere else! > > - Original Message - > > From: Kevin Deegan > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Sent: March 24, 2006 08:15 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > Are you talking to me, Gary North? > > > > Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > My critique of this would be similar to your own. Granted that a > > civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a > > moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some > > attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by > > the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on > > that which opposes the foregoing. > > > > Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine > > 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the above? I do > > believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon > > which you focus (signage wise and all). > > - Original Message - > > From: Kevin Deegan > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march > > > > > > > > The Canadian Guanatamo > > Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance! > > Are you hating an identifiable group? > > And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as > ; > an attack on me & multiple groups of my friends. ; ) > > Do you have the telE for the Tribunal? > > > > Justice in Canaduh > > > > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/ > > passed his second year of incarceration without charge > > Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to > > know all the evidence against him. > > Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related > > > > Canadian Human Rights Commission "The truth in some absolute > > sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which > > the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect > > that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth > > or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is > > understood by the recipient." > > > > Kevin Deegan wrote: > > Don't look now but Canada is changing - Group Think > > Gary North would be proud of you folks. > > He tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you > > folks have actually suceeded! > > > > Robert Martin, professor of constitutional law at the > > University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a totalitarian > > theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would > > describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. > > Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated." > > > > Be careful there have been Inquisitions against professors > > who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned in, > > for your thoughts! > > > > You Can't Say That" > > Canadian thought police on the march. > > By David E. Bernstein > > > > I've had the good fortune of spending this past month on the > > road promoting my new book about how anti-discrimination laws are > > eroding civil liberties. At the end of a recent talk about the book, > > an audience member asked whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ > > is really at risk in the United States from laws meant to aid women > > and minorities. The heart of my response is, "Look at what's > > happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, we're next." > > > > The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with > > seemingly minor and > > understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
I believe Lance has the more accurate picture of what I was trying to convey. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I read his father-in-law's 'Institutes of Biblical Law' (RJR). I read some of North's books. I followed him during the Y2K controversy through his appearances on 'Coast to Coast' with Art Bell. I taped and distributed those shows. (MORE DIRECT ANSWER: I am indeed familiar with the theonomist approach!) Having said that, I'd say that the similarity might be more in tone though some content as well, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 10:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have seen NOBODY on TruthTalk express the theology of Gary North. You guys sound to me like the way you hear Judy talking authoritatively about Torrance. :-) It is obvious that you do not understand the theology of North and others on TruthTalk. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin & David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
Yes. Look at Pat Robertson. If he were president, he would be killing heads of state he considers enemies of the [our] state. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin & David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFL RC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery & JD Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans, Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD & Lance! Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer & #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty # 7
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the law of God, and everyone else. - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFL RC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery & JD Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans, Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD & Lance! Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer & #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty # 7 The Separation of Church and State Try to get your baseless assertions straight: Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery Kindy garten 101 - Who is who? Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htm PROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible & SWORD http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpg For all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the sword? Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/ Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, P
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
A guy who thinks "ur mutha wears Combat (let's be sure to capitalized that word) boots" has something to say concerning [real] discussion on TT !!?? Tell me it isn't so. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is there any doubt why there is a lack of discussion on TT? UR MUTHA wears Combat boots Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Judy:The next time you're asked a question about anything, just hand 'em a Bible with the accompanying instructions: READ IT. Perhaps they'll begin to speak with the clarity with which you do. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 06:26 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. He is your Creator but you are not in His image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all of the above? Where? It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well as your actions. I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would like to be One spirit with you JD Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical does not mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point. David Miller - O
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Dog-gone it all. Why do you say such things??!! Past collegues? You mean those guys you knew 18 years ago before you became a software programer?? Your teachers back in the college days of your youth? jd By the way, every past colleague of mine that I have argued this point, about creationist models being scientifically testable, have had to agree with me that I was right, after MUCH arguing, but they will only concede that every Creationist model of origins that is scientifically testable has already been falsified. The ones that have not been falsified are still unscientific. Go figure.David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian education. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science' reflects neither. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it, and its place in the history of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric if you like. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most of His day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
There is much about this list that I like. I remain a political conservative when it comes to the increase of states rights, free enterprise, spending within our means, property rights, and those sort of things. Neither the Republican nor Democrate parties demonstrate values similar to mine in these regards. I was a Democrate and voted for Carter - the first time. And, in fact, came within a breath of voting for Clinton , the first time. If he hadn't have said "I smoked but I didn't inhale" with a view that we take him seriously, I would have. He was not that bad of a preseident -- not a great one, by any means, but not that bad. He did talk the Jews into making all those concessions and that is overlooked by many. the fact that he used the room in the White House called an "office" to do his deed with Monica some 50 or 60 times is most disgusting to me. For my money, the worst, most immoral President of all time was Nixon. God is the judge, but I see Nixon as thoroughly reprobate. He used Vietnom to get re-elected and his party supported him in that !!??&n bsp; I am thouroughly anti-communist and anti-socialist. The problem with being anti-socialist is that our government has not conducted itself within the parameters of true compassionate conservatism -- making socialism in a number of venues a necessity. We have allowed the Mexican immigrant population to overwhelm us to the point that there is no solution other than amnesty. We have allowed the medical industry so much profit that socialized medicine -- someday -- will become the law of the land. We have so ignored Vocational Education as to make social welfare a greater demand than ever before. Anyway -- not a bad list. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm humbled at your objectivity, Kevin. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 23:36 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Christian roots of our public education system No but I do know about the Lefty Fruits of our public education, it is not about education. it is all about Indoctrination. Government school Education is one of the promises of the Communist Manifesto 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share". 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the propert y of all emigrants and rebels. We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Police confiscation and Court ordered political fines.5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. 7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate reg ulations. 8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. We call it the Social Security Administrat
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Are you the teacher? -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most of His day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? Science has no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community and an innate longing to live beyond what we see. As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! I and my wife are one because God thought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. jd jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical does not mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK into the general population. Even an old earth belief, IMO, does not present enough time for evolution to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro - no. I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a radical and atheistic biology prof. These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in class. They semed to work. Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a concept could be implemented. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? > izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, > I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools > either. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation ism > > > > The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, > > Williams > > said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." > > > > So how have I mischaracterized him? > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > > David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE > > YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, > > David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, > > Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you > > and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri ple > > yikes) > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism > > > > > >> Lance wrote: > >>> If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then > >>> you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. > >> > >> I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be > >> separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have > >> submitted > >> unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. > >> > >> Lance wrote: > >>> He is a brother in Christ who believes > >>> differently than you on some matters. > >>> Now, if that makes him what you say > >>> then, that makes you what I say. > >> &g t; >> He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker > >> was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our > >> Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, > >> assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, > >> then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other > >> believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will > >> continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the > >> acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was > >> very > >> damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the > >> Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the > >> acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but > >> not > >> from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor > >> Rowland > >> Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. > >> > >> David Miller > >> > >> -- > >> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > >> know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > >> http://www.InnGlory.org > >> > >> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > >> friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > >> [EMAIL PROTE
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You two guy's version of "checkmate" is really humorous. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Back to the drawing board, he did not THINK of that.David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lance wrote: > There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your point? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
You two guy's version of "checkmate" is really humorous. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Back to the drawing board, he did not THINK of that.David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lance wrote: > There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your point? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh
Hear that, Judy. Who would have believed you to be a party girl. -- jd Lance wrote:> Would you apply the word 'bias' equally> to yourself and, to Judy with the same force?No, I would not.I have a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person has the establishment behind him. The establishment makes people a little lazy in their thinking. Me, I have to be right if I'm disagreeing with the establishment. They only have to tote the party line, and that reinforces their bias.David Miller -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lance wrote: > > Would you apply the word 'bias' equally > > to yourself and, to Judy with the same force? > > No, I would not. > > I have a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person > has the establishment behind him. The establishment makes people a little > lazy in their thinking. Me, I have to be right if I'm disagreeing with the > establishment. They only have to tote the party line, and that reinforces > their bias. > > David Miller > > - Original Message - > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh > > > David:Would you apply the word 'bias' equally to yourself and, to Judy with > the same force? > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 15:08 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh > > > >I talked to Carl once on the telephone. He was kind enough to return my > > phone call. The problem is that he made some huge mistakes in regards to > > the Paluxy River beds and it greatly hurt the evidence that might actually > > be there for a recent creation. The evolutionists were all over his > > mistake > > and have discounted his entire work because of it. The jury is still open > > for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias of scientists first > > hand. > > > > David Miller > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: "Truth Talk" > > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:31 PM > > Subject: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh > > > > > > DAVEH: Note to DavidM and other TTers. For the first time, I just > > watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN (Thursday nights) program about > > science and the Bible. How do you folks perceive him? > > > > -- > > ~~~ > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > "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.or g > > > > 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. > > > -- > "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] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Weee, yeaahh. And your point? -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most of His day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Well gosh . thank you !! I am out of the office for awhile -- but it truly has been fun !! jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You have risen to new heights, soon to be appointed ARCHbishop, John. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 16:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical does not mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical does not mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
Daivd, I have several books on my shelves written by Christian scientists proclaiming some version of theistic evolution. Secondly, you and are both members of the fundamentalist community. If you have missed the M.O. of any number of our brethren, I haven't. Look at Pat Robertson. A Dufus of major proportions. He has his foot in his mouth so often they now measure that cavity in terms of shoe size !! The cause of Christ would become even more difficult if we allowed this to happen. At least the way it is now, we (the Christian community) can somewhat hide these guys from society. The KKK was made up of mostly Christian claiming people. Can you imagine? "OK, students, we have just completed our study on evolution from a scientific point of view. Now , we enter into the Christian notion of creation -- or should I say the several versions of same !! (and the teacher smiles.) We only had space in the text book for five such theories. I personally do not believe any of them -- and I need to make that clear to you before "they" pass some law that says I cannot influence your thinking with such a statement -- but I will do the best I can. Before I begin, how many of you care about any of this ... show of hands, please . I said "show of " . oh, I get get it. Well , we have to consider each of these accounts of creation, anyway, and there will be a test. I must say, it seems a bit odd for me. I mean, I wil l be making a presentation of a biblical nature, but , of course, we are not permitted to present from the Bible -- so I really do not know why this is not being done in church .. but here goes ..." jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this fact? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. Scary. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What do
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
And who is going to present these competing versions of creation -- the average Joe school teacher ?? Do you have any idea what an antagonist educator would do with such information? Actually, this "creationism in the school" thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !! jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody Home? Think, McFly, Think." To further elucidate my point: having numerous creationist models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our educational system. There are numerous models of evolution as well. The premise by which you think you can rest your case is rather elusive. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal a candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that one over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms securely locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?' David: You sound a little like Homer in your reply. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 10:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism Lance wrote: > There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your point? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the ack
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. Scary. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
Yet, how much time did you spend doing the same to others !!?? Give me a break. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gnats have injured my ego more than you and yours are capable of doing. Too > bad your objectives on TT are thwarted. iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 AM > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > Correction then, Iz: You're soo shallow. (That's gwine reach me.) > - Original Message - > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > Sent: March 23, 2006 06:36 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > I'm just trying to stay at a level that can reach you, Lance. :-) iz > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:13 PM > > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > You're soo deep, Iz. > > - Original Message - > > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: > > Sent: March 22, 2006 14:22 > > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > > 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > > > >> Baloney. > >> > >> - Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:04 AM > >> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > >> 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > >> > >> Even at this late date such a response is unworthy of you. Israel, on > >> some > >> occasions (see it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES! > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> To: > >> Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49 > >> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim > >> 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > >> > >> > > ;>> But Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!) iz > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:06 PM > >>> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: > >>> Purim > >>> 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > >>> > >>> Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has > >>> adopted the role of oppressor. > >>> > >>> ROTFL > >>> That is Ludicrous on the face of it. > >>> Where did you pick this whopper up? > >>> > >>> Perhaps you need a Geography lesson! > >>> http://www.masada2000.org/ geography.html > >>> Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, > >>> SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 TIMES her > >>> size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab > >>> propagandists call Israel "expansionist!" And how dare anyone believe > >>> them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the > >>> lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of > >>> 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 > >>> million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of > >>> the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims > >>> worldwide? > >>> > >>> I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too > >>> Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of > >>> David before he meets Goliath! > >>> LOL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >>> > Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd > 'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! Sadly, > Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the > role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: > Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad > > > There is little point in ta lking with someone who knows me better > than I know me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind > of narrowness that I disregard. > > jd > > -- Original message -- > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Jd, I never said the Jews will be restored Outside of the church; > they will be become believers. You say you don't dislike Jews more > than any other unbelievers
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders. That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college age young people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most of His day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
I am talking about what we teach in school and Judy comes back with something about "the secret things" and then Kevin, bless his little heart, comes back with something about reading the Bible --- NEW FLASH !!! Obviously TT as a DISCUSSION GROUP died some time ago !! Over here , guys !! I am the one talking about .. oh, never mind. You guys are a hoot !! At least I don't have to worry about defending myself since none of us are talking about the same things -- and you guys believe unity is "speaking and thinking the same things??"" LOL !! jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is in the Bible READ IT[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what on earth are you talking about, Judy !!! Secret things ??? So you decided to just stay off subject? Whatever. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some ppl are willing to let God be God JD The secret things belong to the Lord and as Kevin says; let the ppl serving Caesar fumble around and follow whatever way the wind is blowing. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:34:20 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Someone said render to Cesear what is Cesear's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
"Believe in God's word" is fundy code for "believe as I do." When we have been dispersed, take with you the knowledge that not one single Rad Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what "doctrine" they are talking about. You must obey the commandments !!! they yell to the others. What commandments --- love one another, treat others as you would be treated, do not judge with finality, strive to be as mature as God is? Do not lust. Be angry and sin not? Is that it? They make it sound as if they have commandments no else has -- and it turns out , they do not. Just a big deal over the very same things all of us practice. Sigh jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] myth (this writer subjugates us to her narrow notions, permits us no faith in God per se) On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:08:08 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: .. jt: ppl of faith believe God's Word
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
And sure enough, you did this very thing -- Be sure to answer with "the right one, John -- duh !! Your wording a little different, but it is the same ridiculous non-answer. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well of course you couldn't tell them the Truth JD could you? I mean after all He is a Rock of offense and it might offend the Muslims We are responsible to instruct our own children - The public schools don't care what view anyone on TT holds do they? On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:22:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GOES INTO THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM -- HUH ??!! Be sure to answer with "the right one, John -- duh !!" or will that be Linda's piece of intellectual contribuation for the day? jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
what on earth are you talking about, Judy !!! Secret things ??? So you decided to just stay off subject? Whatever. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some ppl are willing to let God be God JD The secret things belong to the Lord and as Kevin says; let the ppl serving Caesar fumble around and follow whatever way the wind is blowing. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:34:20 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Someone said render to Cesear what is Cesear's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systems and you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system ... I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worry about consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
We are still waitig ! -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Someone said render to Cesear what is Cesear's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] In sum
I think I now have enough evidence to put you in the slammer -- for beinging a "peeping tom." Big time mistake, THIS time. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Your MUTHA wears Combat boots![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Go back to sleep, Judy, and the problem just might resolve itself. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Oophs! The mockers have been emboldened ... Anarchy is at the door On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:47:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:32 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: .. [so & so has no] method whatsoever to discern the truth of Scripture : On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:27:27 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: the Bible has offered a *[partial but truthful] revelation concering Himself and His son [*g] --- On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 23:12:34 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: TRUTH IS Jesus Christ g: then, implicitly, you are a liar New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A & E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process, > IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: > But to allow a mere statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies > -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
froth around the edges of the lips. -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Then maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us. I am sure Lance can not/will not I am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of that particular ISM? David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lance wrote:> Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... > FundamentalISM ought not be > believed by anyone.FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.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.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. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
There is no point in such posts. You can't get it right with Stone/Campbell. no point in believing you can get it right concerning anything else. Information sources need to be predictably accurate -- not just predictable. . jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A man may be Theologically Intelligent but Spiritually Ignorant and without personal morals. Then again maybe ignorant on both count RW on the Atonement "'Christians have always found it hard to say exactly how this works. Some speak of Jesus taking the punishment for sin in our place, some speak of him offering himself as a sacrifice. Some speak of him winning a victory over Satan and setting all of us who are prisoners free. It seems that there is no one way of saying this correctly.' Unitarian DRUID! http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page120.html Archbishop - or Arch-heretic?Williams had been inducted into 'the Gorsedd of Bards', reported to be an historic order of Druids with pagan roots. Williams apparently went through an hour-long ceremony at sunrise within a circle of standing stones like those at Stonehenge and the significance was variously reported, e.g.: 'The Gorsedd of Bards takes its name from the high seat, which was the mount on which the sacred kings were wedded to the female spirit of the land in ancient times.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1045967,00.html archbishop finds himself cast out by evangelicals Congress exposes Anglican leader's position as split over gays grows deeper BIRDS of a FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER! Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to John Paul II, 10/4/03: In 1966 Pope Paul VI gave Archbishop Michael Ramsey his own Episcopal ring, which has been treasured by his successors and which I wear today. I am glad to thank you for the personal gift of a pectoral cross, sent to me on the occasion of my enthronement earlier this year. As I took on my new ministry I appreciated deeply that sign of a shared task This is the seal of a VALID Bishop of ROME! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734282506.html Rowan Williams, the next archbishop of Canterbury, is to meet members of the Church of England's oldest evangelical body next week in an attempt to convince them that he is not a heretic over his views on homosexuality and the literal truth of some biblical stories Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rowan Williams should be embarassed for being a pretenderLance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: March 21, 2006 13:12Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism> Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that> creationism should not be considered in schools? I hate it when > theologians> are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school.>> David Miller>>> - Original Message - > From: Debbie Sawczak> To: 'Lance Muir'> Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism< BR "And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness> that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite> compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely > that> unfolds in creative time.">> Yup.>> D>>> From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM> To: Debbie Sawczak> Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - > From: Lance Muir> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06> Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - > From: Hughes Jonathan> To: Lance Muir> Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45> Subject: Williams on Creationism>>> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.wi lliams.ap/index.html>> Jonathan Hughes> Supervisor of Application Support> Kingsway Financial> 905-629-7888 x. 2471 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
