Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 7:02:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We can not even agree on this! Well, we have finally reached agreement.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 7:01:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can not be saved in error. So you right about everthing you think? Not John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
I think a bigger failure is your accusatory nature. "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, if you will trace this thread back to my initial apology and asking of forgiveness, you will see that I apologized for misquoting Judy by using something you had posted, a fairly benign failure on my part, but a failure nonetheless. I have made those sorts of mistakes before. I may make them again. Nevertheless I made it this time, and so I apologized to her and all involved; that includes you. Again, Kevin, I apologize. Again, Kevin, will you forgive me. bill taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Forgive you, for what wrong?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, it's starting to sound like your issue is with me. My issue with Judy did not involve what she had done in the past. My issue had to do with what she was doing in the present. Do you still have questions? If not, then, you've made your point. I've made mine. I forgive you. Will you forgive me? bill taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Where is the even handedness in this? Bill lectures you, without even a contextual knowledge of the "event". Without any questioning of Izzy. I think Bill has a bullseye on YOU Judy. You must have said something that hurt his feelings.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
We can not even agree on this![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:23:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What makes your opinion so important? It is the correct one. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
I percieve that we understand this in two different senses. I believe your statement is falacious. You can not be saved in error. 2 thes 2;12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth 2:13 salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth 1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. You can not be saved when trusting in a false god for instance. Ex 23;24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Judges 2:12 bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. You can have all the faith in the world but that faith must stand in something real. Zech 10:2 For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain You can not walk with God while being a friend to the world James 4:4 whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God You can not walk with God and disagree with him at the same time. Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? ECC 12:10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. There are those that: Have turned from the truth to fables 2 Tim 4:4 Reprobates with corrupt minds who resist the truth 2 Tim 3:8 The Ever learning who can never quite find the truth 2 Tim 3:7 Those that oppose themselves & need mercy to repent and acknowledge the truth 2 Tim 2:25 Those that have erred and take others with them in their faith 2 Tim 2:18 Those of corrupt minds, that are destitute of truth 1 Tim 6:5 And last but not least those that study to rightly divide the word of truth. 2 tim 2:15 James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. I do not want to see ANYBODY go to hell! Go ye into ALL the world and PREACH the gospel to EVERY creature [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "saved by faith apart from being right" Could I restate this as "you are saved by faith in spite of being wrong"? Absolutely. Actually, a very good point. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "saved by faith apart from being right" Could I restate this as "you are saved by faith in spite of being wrong"? Absolutely. Actually, a very good point. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:23:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What makes your opinion so important? It is the correct one. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 3:19:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let God be true and EVERY Man a LIAR" A great lead-in to group discussion.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Kevin, if you will trace this thread back to my
initial apology and asking of forgiveness, you will see that I apologized for
misquoting Judy by using something you had posted, a fairly benign failure on my
part, but a failure nonetheless. I have made those sorts of mistakes before. I
may make them again. Nevertheless I made it this time, and so I apologized to
her and all involved; that includes you. Again, Kevin, I apologize.
Again, Kevin, will you forgive me.
bill taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Forgive you, for what wrong?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin, it's starting to sound like your issue
is with me. My issue with Judy did not involve what she had done in the
past. My issue had to do with what she was doing in the present. Do you
still have questions? If not, then, you've made your point. I've made mine.
I forgive you. Will you forgive me?
bill taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:21
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Where is the even handedness in this?
Bill lectures you, without even a contextual knowledge of the
"event". Without any questioning of Izzy. I think Bill has a bullseye on
YOU Judy. You must have said something that hurt his
feelings.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bill,
I percieve that you are another one who does
not listen.
You have judged me already as offensive, proud,
and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party.
I have already written to Izzy with no response
so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me
a liar on top of your other adjectives.
This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so
talk to Izzy.
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are
commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us
personally but do concern us corporately as the body of
Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because
you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to
recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting
your sister.
Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT
and recognize the error of your ways.
Bill Taylor
John writes > I don't
mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures
teach that we are not to "seek our
own." Love does not seek its own way
or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to
others. Why not practice what you
preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list.
jt writes > Then
John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for
her? Do you have instruction
from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels
that don't concern them. Why are you doing
this?
-
From:
Judy Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a public list
and you are choosing to be here
john: Why do you
communicate with Izzy?
jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this
John?
Do you actually think you are accomplishing
some good addressing
your thoughts to someone who is not
listening to you?
jt: I don't address my thoughts to
Izzy normally. I did write her off list
but she ignored that and this will
most likely make things worse. Why
can't we address issues and leave
the personal stuff alone.
I don't mind the discussion with you,
but Izzy does. the scriptures
teach that we are not to "seek our own."
Love does not seek its own
way or will. Izzy does have a
delete button.
jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete
button just like I use mine.
Why are you taking up an offense for
her?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Forgive you, for what wrong?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, it's starting to sound like your issue is with me. My issue with Judy did not involve what she had done in the past. My issue had to do with what she was doing in the present. Do you still have questions? If not, then, you've made your point. I've made mine. I forgive you. Will you forgive me? bill taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Where is the even handedness in this? Bill lectures you, without even a contextual knowledge of the "event". Without any questioning of Izzy. I think Bill has a bullseye on YOU Judy. You must have said something that hurt his feelings.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Kevin, it's starting to sound like your issue is with me. My issue with Judy did not involve what she had done in the past. My issue had to do with what she was doing in the present. Do you still have questions? If not, then, you've made your point. I've made mine. I forgive you. Will you forgive me? bill taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Where is the even handedness in this? Bill lectures you, without even a contextual knowledge of the "event". Without any questioning of Izzy. I think Bill has a bullseye on YOU Judy. You must have said something that hurt his feelings.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life What way are you on? He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 1:43:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Or maybe Proverbs 12:1 applies: Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge. But he who hates reproof is stupid. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Seems they have the same thing the LDS have They do not want to hear it so they try to make you shut up. I think this happened in the bible a time or two. Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right on. You know Kevin I can understand receiving a lot of flack out on the street preaching to unbelievers, in SLC, or in my case with my unbelieving family and other unbelievers. What I find tragic on TT is that on a list like this where most people claim to be serving the Lord one finds the same resistance to God's Word and some are just as mean or meaner than the ones out on the street How does this figure? jt From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Maybe they are Tares!Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right on. You know Kevin I can understand receiving a lot of flack out on the street preaching to unbelievers, in SLC, or in my case with my unbelieving family and other unbelievers. What I find tragic on TT is that on a list like this where most people claim to be serving the Lord one finds the same resistance to God's Word and some are just as mean or meaner than the ones out on the street How does this figure? jt From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
LOL and this coming from the one that keeps jumping on Judy? What business is Judy/Izzy of yours? Are you a busy body?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
"saved by faith apart from being right" Could I restate this as "you are saved by faith in spite of being wrong"?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:17:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tell me your reasoningi don't know if my bias and my reasoning can be separaed but, as I used to say in book sales, "here goes nothing." I believe the biblical message teaches clearly that you, Blaine, are saved by faith apart from being right. Your faith in Christ and the church you are aligned with are two different things to me. To the others on this list, Bill, Izzy, and all, I am open to discussion on this. Back to Blaine. Understand that I am not proclaiming you a part of the saved. That's not my job. in this case. If you are saying that we are brothers in Christ, I can accept that. You will understand, of course, that accepting you and accepting Mormon teaching are two different things. But I accept Catholics without accepting the Roman Church. Paul accepted those who continued to follow Judaism and Christ. Are you and I brothers? John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
The point is you take Judy to task. ON WHAT BASIS? Your own personal opinion? What makes your opinion so important?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/29/2004 8:19:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy don't you get it they only want SMOOTH THINGS! Cmon John, scarcely has time to think, and you are a genius?You know something, Kevin, my words are very clear. I have emails in storage from judyt in which she goes after BillT on this Polanyi thread, for example, while admitting in the same email that she does not understand what is being said! Nothing in my post about my being a genius, but thanks for the compliment. What do you have against God's word? "He that is of God heareth Gods word ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God"Take off your robe and come down from the bench, oh ye who would judge mankind. Judy interferes and you are a blessing? Judy is a hypocrite and you are Right?Actually we are all hypocrites. Some of us flaunt it and others do not. She complains about my interfering in her thread while she interferes in others. What do you call it? To me that is the very essence of hypocrisy. I see that you do not have a double standard you have only one standard, yours.Do you understand that the "love chapter" -- I Co 13 is NOT about marital relationships? Rather, the admonitions found there, contextually are about how members of the body of Christ are to relate to each other. But you see, you and judyt are in this list to root out false teaching and expose it. I am amazed at just how much judyt (and at times yourself) pretend to know. I am a fairly accomplished student. Been one for years but you two know something about everything. I kind of envy you, I guess. Well, I better get back to the books and try to catch up. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Where is the even handedness in this? Bill lectures you, without even a contextual knowledge of the "event". Without any questioning of Izzy. I think Bill has a bullseye on YOU Judy. You must have said something that hurt his feelings.Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
"Let God be true and EVERY Man a LIAR" The Holy BibleJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill, shouldn't you be letting God be God in the lives of people? Last I read it was the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When do unrepentant sinners ever request counseling? They would be unrepentant sinners if they were seeking counsel. From: Judy Taylor Kevin isn't the one who dragged this out of the woodpile - it was one of 'in your words' your paranoid friends Bill trying to counsel where counselling had not been requested. jt From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor From: Kevin Deegan Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
real motives? You have been asked by your sister to respect her wishes
and stop intruding upon and critiquing her conversations. When you critique her
words, and this in the face of the history of our last few days, are you not
revealing where and with whom your own allegiances lie? Why don't you stop doing
this? either that or just get sick of us all and leave?
If you want me out of your correspondence,
that is one thing. If I am right in what I am saying while in your
correspondence that is quite another. That is one which even if I am not the one
making it, still needs to be made from this side . . . .
and addressed from your side of this problem.
Respectfully,
Bill
Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin
Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:06
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Perhaps Bill you are just plain wrong. You also, are interfering here.
You were not around when this "problem" occured how do you make a judgement
then?
It seems to me that just maybe your bringing your own baggage to the
table. Seems you don't like contention and provocation. Am I
wrong?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
No, Judy, I am not calling you a liar.
And I am not even doubting that you did write Izzy. You are right: Izzy is
offended, and I sense that she is angry. Why continue to provoke her? For I
am also observing that you have kept with your offensive ways toward
her, even after your claim to have written to her personally. I may
only imagine what your private correspondence said, but I can observe with
my own eyes what you continue to do on TT. Judy, it is time to take the
words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your
ways.
Respectfully,
Bill
Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:43
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Bill,
I percieve that you are another one who does not
listen.
You have judged me already as offensive, proud,
and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party.
I have already written to Izzy with no response
so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me
a liar on top of your other adjectives.
This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so
talk to Izzy.
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded
to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally
but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew
18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning,
because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either,
and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your
sister.
Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT
and recognize the error of your ways.
Bill Taylor
John writes > I don't mind
the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not
seek its own way or will. Izzy does
have a delete button. And you have
instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your
"rights" as a member of a public
list.
jt writes > Then
John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for
her? Do you have instruction from
God to jump into the middle of this. I think
there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing
this?
-
From:
Judy
Taylor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a public list and
you are choosing to be here
john: Why do you
communicate with Izzy?
jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this
John?
Do you actually think you are accomplishing
some good addressing
your thoughts to someone who is not listening
to you?
jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy
normally. I did write her off list
but she ignored that and this will most
likely make things worse. Why
can't we address issues and leave
the personal stuff alone.
I don't mind the discussion with you,
but Izzy does. the scriptures
teach that we are
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 8:19:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy don't you get it they only want SMOOTH THINGS! Cmon John, scarcely has time to think, and you are a genius? You know something, Kevin, my words are very clear. I have emails in storage from judyt in which she goes after BillT on this Polanyi thread, for example, while admitting in the same email that she does not understand what is being said! Nothing in my post about my being a genius, but thanks for the compliment. What do you have against God's word? "He that is of God heareth Gods word ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God" Take off your robe and come down from the bench, oh ye who would judge mankind. Judy interferes and you are a blessing? Judy is a hypocrite and you are Right? Actually we are all hypocrites. Some of us flaunt it and others do not. She complains about my interfering in her thread while she interferes in others. What do you call it? To me that is the very essence of hypocrisy. I see that you do not have a double standard you have only one standard, yours. Do you understand that the "love chapter" -- I Co 13 is NOT about marital relationships? Rather, the admonitions found there, contextually are about how members of the body of Christ are to relate to each other. But you see, you and judyt are in this list to root out false teaching and expose it. I am amazed at just how much judyt (and at times yourself) pretend to know. I am a fairly accomplished student. Been one for years but you two know something about everything. I kind of envy you, I guess. Well, I better get back to the books and try to catch up. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/29/2004 8:07:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that just maybe your bringing your own baggage to the table. Seems you don't like contention and provocation. We must do everything to avoid contention at all costs. Am I wrong? And I am wondering, is Kevin closing in on the truth or is he getting ready to have a relapse? John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy don't you get it they only want SMOOTH THINGS! Cmon John, scarcely has time to think, and you are a genius? What do you have against God's word? "He that is of God heareth Gods word ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God" Judy interferes and you are a blessing? Judy is a hypocrite and you are Right? I see that you do not have a double standard you have only one standard, yours. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I Last I read it was the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. An amazing display of hypocrisy. Words coming from someone who (a) interferes in every thread on this list and (b) is so busy doing the Holy Spirit's work that she scarcely has time to think. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Perhaps Bill you are just plain wrong. You also, are interfering here. You were not around when this "problem" occured how do you make a judgement then? It seems to me that just maybe your bringing your own baggage to the table. Seems you don't like contention and provocation. We must do everything to avoid contention at all costs. Am I wrong?"Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, Judy, I am not calling you a liar. And I am not even doubting that you did write Izzy. You are right: Izzy is offended, and I sense that she is angry. Why continue to provoke her? For I am also observing that you have kept with your offensive ways toward her, even after your claim to have written to her personally. I may only imagine what your private correspondence said, but I can observe with my own eyes what you continue to do on TT. Judy, it is time to take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Respectfully, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:01:00 -0700 Blaine: Perry, thank you for always being willing to lower the ladder for me, that I might climb up where you presume to be.If nothing else, your heart is in the right place. We Mormons do have some doctrines that are foreign to your old system of thought, but they came from God.If you cannot accept Jesus as being a dynamic, caring, intervening God, fully capable of taking the reins and directing his church directly and through his chosen prophets, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Blaine, that the LDS are endowed with a blindness that prevents them from seeing the differences between the LDS god and jesus, and the God and Jesus of the Bible is unfortunate. They are not the same. Now, as to whether worshipping a different god and jesus than those of the Bible will preclude you from salvation, I cannot make that judgement. I can only say that the LDS god and jesus are foreign to the Bible, and to me. The God of the Bible is infinite, the only God, He is God in eternity past and is God in eternity future. He is NOT from Kolob, He was NOT once a man who became a god, He did NOT come to earth and have physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus, He did NOT have many spiritual Mrs. gods to have sex with and produce spirits to populate the bodies born on earth. That is all wrong, Blaine, and unbiblical. Correct me if I am wrong, but to me you seem to insist he is a standpat, gagged and hogtied god who can do nothing new. Those are your words and your impression of the God of the Bible. I do not see Him that way. I see him as sovereign God that He is. It is you that have given your god man-like qualities. Sorry, but I cannot accept that. Take care, old buddy, and keep in touch, as we never know when the right teachable moments in our lives will be. (:>) Perry - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > >Blaine wrote: So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, > >please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not > >interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. > > Blaine, Blaine, Blaine. I have been over this several times on TT. Since you > worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and a DIFFERENT God than the Jesus and God of the > Bible, then you are not a Christian. I have given a fairly involved > explanation in posts a few months back of how I know that the LDS God and > Jesus are not the Biblical God and Jesus. > > Perry > > > >From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:16:03 -0700 > > > >Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I > >am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they > >haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they > >have heard someone say. > >Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a > >prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. > > Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. > >Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. ----- Original Message > >- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > > > > > > In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be > >Mormon/Christian > > any more than you can be Jew/Christian. > > > > > > > > Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- > >virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of > >legalism called Judaism. > > Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally > >believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death > >(Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is > >abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT > >see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually > >everywhere. > > > > > > Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in > >Fresno. > > > > John S
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 9:02:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Correct me if I am wrong, but to me you seem to insist he is a standpat, gagged and hogtied god who can do nothing new. Under the new covenant of grace, He (God) does not need to be anything but steadfast and consistent. It is grace verses works, whether Mormon, Baptist, Catholic or whatever. The church was NEVER right on its own terms. It needed grace for the same reasons individual members have that need and it needed grace from day one. That is the revelation -- in your KJV bible and in ours. Sorry for the interruption and Perry can take care of himself, I know. I just had to do it. By the way, your silence on this brother question means to me that there is more to it for you, Blaine, than simply being a Christian. John John
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
John, I can understand your reasoning below. But may I have permission to insert two comments? 1) Jews can certainly remain Jews as believers in Messiah Yeshua. Jesus was and still is the Jewish Messiah. Many Jews today can and do know Jesus as Lord. We might call them “Christians”, but they still consider themselves to be Jews. (Like Paul himself.) 2) However, I think mormons have a simple misunderstanding of who Jesus is. They have been taught that He is the brother of satan, one of many gods, and that mormons themselves are morphing into gods just like Jesus did, etc. They cannot be followers of the real Jesus because they have been given the wrong “Jesus” to follow; not because they don’t have all the “right” doctrines on non-critical issues. (But the Lord can continue draw truly seeking hearts which, hopefully Blaine has.) Do you think I’m all wet? J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:17:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tell me your reasoning i don't know if my bias and my reasoning can be separaed but, as I used to say in book sales, "here goes nothing." I believe the biblical message teaches clearly that you, Blaine, are saved by faith apart from being right. Your faith in Christ and the church you are aligned with are two different things to me. To the others on this list, Bill, Izzy, and all, I am open to discussion on this. Back to Blaine. Understand that I am not proclaiming you a part of the saved. That's not my job. in this case. If you are saying that we are brothers in Christ, I can accept that. You will understand, of course, that accepting you and accepting Mormon teaching are two different things. But I accept Catholics without accepting the Roman Church. Paul accepted those who continued to follow Judaism and Christ. Are you and I brothers? John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Blaine: Perry, thank you for always being willing to lower the ladder for me, that I might climb up where you presume to be.If nothing else, your heart is in the right place. We Mormons do have some doctrines that are foreign to your old system of thought, but they came from God.If you cannot accept Jesus as being a dynamic, caring, intervening God, fully capable of taking the reins and directing his church directly and through his chosen prophets, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Correct me if I am wrong, but to me you seem to insist he is a standpat, gagged and hogtied god who can do nothing new. Sorry, but I cannot accept that. Take care, old buddy, and keep in touch, as we never know when the right teachable moments in our lives will be. (:>) - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > >Blaine wrote: So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, > >please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not > >interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. > > Blaine, Blaine, Blaine. I have been over this several times on TT. Since you > worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and a DIFFERENT God than the Jesus and God of the > Bible, then you are not a Christian. I have given a fairly involved > explanation in posts a few months back of how I know that the LDS God and > Jesus are not the Biblical God and Jesus. > > Perry > > > >From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:16:03 -0700 > > > >Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I > >am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they > >haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they > >have heard someone say. > >Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a > >prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. > > Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. > >Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup.- Original Message > >- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious > > > > > > In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be > >Mormon/Christian > > any more than you can be Jew/Christian. > > > > > > > > Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- > >virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of > >legalism called Judaism. > > Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally > >believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death > >(Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is > >abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT > >see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually > >everywhere. > > > > > > Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in > >Fresno. > > > > John Smithson > > _ > All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by > ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn > > -- > "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] God in our unconscious
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Well Blaine: According to scripture on the last day we are going to be judged according to the Words Jesus spoke. These are not the same Words your BofM teaches Blaine: Actually there is little in the BoM itself that is contrary to the gospels in the Bible. Most of the differences that seem foreign to you come from later revelations, now contained in the Book called The Doctrine and Covenants. It contains much on how Christ's church is to be organized and conducted in these latter days, in preparation for His second coming in glory, as well as doctriines that clarify but do not really add to the gospel as delivered to the saints of the early church. I am telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. OK? So how will you get around that? Jesus said the gate is strait and the way is narrow and only a few are going to find it. Blaine: The question is, who are the ones who will be the "few?" I have faith God is a fair and equitable god. He will include all who earnestly seek to keep his commandments, and in doing so prove their friendship to him. We are all his children--do you believe that? I know you've heard all this before but Mormonism adds to God's Truth making it something other than the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. Some on this list who profess to be believers may encourage you in this deception... they are not the ones who really care for your soul. Blaine: I am always glad to hear someone cares for my soul. Thank you Judy From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning --but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
No, Judy, I am not calling you a liar. And I am not even doubting that you did write Izzy. You are right: Izzy is offended, and I sense that she is angry. Why continue to provoke her? For I am also observing that you have kept with your offensive ways toward her, even after your claim to have written to her personally. I may only imagine what your private correspondence said, but I can observe with my own eyes what you continue to do on TT. Judy, it is time to take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Respectfully, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
I Last I read it was the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. An amazing display of hypocrisy. Words coming from someone who (a) interferes in every thread on this list and (b) is so busy doing the Holy Spirit's work that she scarcely has time to think.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Blaine wrote: So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. Blaine, Blaine, Blaine. I have been over this several times on TT. Since you worship a DIFFERENT Jesus and a DIFFERENT God than the Jesus and God of the Bible, then you are not a Christian. I have given a fairly involved explanation in posts a few months back of how I know that the LDS God and Jesus are not the Biblical God and Jesus. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:16:03 -0700 Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson _ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Bill, shouldn't you be letting God be God in the lives of people? Last I read it was the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When do unrepentant sinners ever request counseling? They would be unrepentant sinners if they were seeking counsel. From: Judy Taylor Kevin isn't the one who dragged this out of the woodpile - it was one of 'in your words' your paranoid friends Bill trying to counsel where counselling had not been requested. jt From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor From: Kevin Deegan Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
When do unrepentant sinners ever request counseling? They would be unrepentant sinners if they were seeking counsel. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Kevin isn't the one who dragged this out of the woodpile - it was one of 'in your words' your paranoid friends Bill trying to counsel where counselling had not been requested. jt From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor From: Kevin Deegan Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Bill, I percieve that you are another one who does not listen. You have judged me already as offensive, proud, and stubborn, causing hurt to an innocent party. I have already written to Izzy with no response so have done all that I can do. Are you calling me a liar on top of your other adjectives. This is not my fight. Izzy is the offended, angry one so talk to Izzy. From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? - From: Judy Taylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:33:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Yes and amen Thanks Bill, John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:17:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tell me your reasoning i don't know if my bias and my reasoning can be separaed but, as I used to say in book sales, "here goes nothing." I believe the biblical message teaches clearly that you, Blaine, are saved by faith apart from being right. Your faith in Christ and the church you are aligned with are two different things to me. To the others on this list, Bill, Izzy, and all, I am open to discussion on this. Back to Blaine. Understand that I am not proclaiming you a part of the saved. That's not my job. in this case. If you are saying that we are brothers in Christ, I can accept that. You will understand, of course, that accepting you and accepting Mormon teaching are two different things. But I accept Catholics without accepting the Roman Church. Paul accepted those who continued to follow Judaism and Christ. Are you and I brothers? John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
John writes > I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt writes > Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Bill writes > Judy, sometimes we are commanded to get involved in quarrels that may not concern us personally but do concern us corporately as the body of Christ (Matthew 18). Perhaps John is getting involved here because you are sinning, because you are offensive, because you are too proud to recognize either, and because your refusal to repent is still hurting your sister. Take the words of your brothers and sister here on TT and recognize the error of your ways. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this?
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Well Blaine: According to scripture on the last day we are going to be judged according to the Words Jesus spoke. These are not the same Words your BofM teaches So how will you get around that? Jesus said the gate is strait and the way is narrow and only a few are going to find it. I know you've heard all this before but Mormonism adds to God's Truth making it something other than the faith ONCE delivered to the saints. Some on this list who profess to be believers may encourage you in this deception... they are not the ones who really care for your soul. From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning --but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Kevin isn't the one who dragged this out of the woodpile - it was one of 'in your words' your paranoid friends Bill trying to counsel where counselling had not been requested. jt From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor From: Kevin Deegan Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Blaine: I keep wondering, when people say I am not a Christian because I am a Mormon, if they even know what they are saying. It seems to me they haven't really thought anything through, they are just parroting what they have heard someone say. Am I a Muslim? Nope, I do not worship Mohammed, or believe Mohammed was a prophet. Am I a Jew? Nope, I believe the Messiah arrived as Jesus Christ. Am I an Atheist? Nope, I believe in God. Do I believe in and worship Jesus Christ? Yup. So I must be a Christian. If you still don't believe this, please tell me your reasoning--but withold your biases, as I am not interested in noisy nonsense or insulting word-offal. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Kevin, maybe sometimes its better to stay out of other people's business, especially if all you are doing in it is making matters worse. Even the paranoid (like me, and John, and Izzy, and DaveH, and Blaine, and Lance, and DavidM, and whoever else you don't like) can have some true enemies. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Right on. You know Kevin I can understand receiving a lot of flack out on the street preaching to unbelievers, in SLC, or in my case with my unbelieving family and other unbelievers. What I find tragic on TT is that on a list like this where most people claim to be serving the Lord one finds the same resistance to God's Word and some are just as mean or meaner than the ones out on the street How does this figure? jt From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 1:43:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Or maybe Proverbs 12:1 applies: Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge. But he who hates reproof is stupid.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. Judy you have been Rebuked for communicating. Please do not communicate a rebuke to John this is a one way street. Is it not a little hypocritical to jump in to your conversation to tell you not to do the same? John's work here accomplishes good in his eyes. As per his rebuke for you, it appears in his eyes, you have no good to accomplish! Are you standing for truth? Amos 5:10 They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this? Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 12:48:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. kevin, I was quoting I Cor 13:5 but apparently you think this list is a mission field. Thanks for keeping us all on the straight and narrow. J
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here john: Why do you communicate with Izzy? jt: Why do you want to keep stirring this John? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? jt: I don't address my thoughts to Izzy normally. I did write her off list but she ignored that and this will most likely make things worse. Why can't we address issues and leave the personal stuff alone. I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. jt: Then John, let Izzy use her delete button just like I use mine. Why are you taking up an offense for her? And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. jt: Do you have instruction from God to jump into the middle of this. I think there is a Proverb about ppl who get into quarrels that don't concern them. Why are you doing this?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Well I guess Jesus should rewrite Mark 16 Todays 21 first century version: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to those that want to hear it[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be hereWhy do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/28/2004 2:48:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a public list and you are choosing to be here Why do you communicate with Izzy? Do you actually think you are accomplishing some good addressing your thoughts to someone who is not listening to you? I don't mind the discussion with you, but Izzy does. the scriptures teach that we are not to "seek our own." Love does not seek its own way or will. Izzy does have a delete button. And you have instruction from God on how to show respect to others. Why not practice what you preach instead of insisting on your "rights" as a member of a public list. John
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Very sad Izzy, Sounds like praying all day did you not one bit of good because you are certainly no sweeter for the experience. Are you aware that God does not hear ppl who hold ought against their brother? I would say that this is one BIG OUGHT. You have built a thick wall of protection around yourself but I am only flesh and blood and hey, you have a delete key same as me. If I don't like some things ppl write on TT I use that. I can't promise you anything other than that you won't get any more attention from me than anyone else on TT so long as I'm here. I address issues, I don't attack persons. This is a public list and you are choosing to be here, so forget the stalking idea (where is that from? Are you aware that feelings are not always divine?). As for me, I am what I am by the grace of God and I'm sorry that so far this does not meet your expectation but I'm still under construction so there is hope. I've done everything I know to do so far. Are you without sin Izzy? judyt From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, This is the last time I am writing back to you. I have no recollection of you sending me an email offline in December. Sorry if that bothers you. I did look at the last statement I emailed to you on 12/22/03 before I left TT which was: “Since you don’t seem to be happy unless I am ensnared in your pointless bickering, you will have to enjoy your “grace and peace” without me.” I wrote to you yesterday that I find you to be impossibly contentious. I failed to add that I also find you to be terribly controlling and meddlesome. (I honestly don’t mind if you have those qualities, as long as you do not impose them on me, personally.) To answer your question, “THAT IS THE PROBLEM.” I am only angry when you won’t leave me alone. You make me feel like I am being stalked. So please do both of us a favor: Don’t talk about me or to me, either on-line or off-line, and please stay out of my conversations. That way we won’t bother each other, and I can enjoy TT without feeling harassed to the point of leaving. I enjoyed many friends on TT for many years before you arrived, and I would prefer to stay a while longer. I am sure you have many wonderful qualities, most of which elude me. I am sure that is my failing and not yours. May God bless you richly, and fulfill your every heart’s desire. I hate confrontations, and this has been quite a growth experience for me. Thanks very much. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:21 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what “issue” you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from “the past”, please be assured that I don’t even remember it. jt: Normal ppl are not hostile as you are toward me without a reason. I believe this goes back to sometime before Christmas when I asked you not to interject 'cute one-liners' in emails between me and the Mormon boys. I was new to the list at the time and so didn't know what you had learned already. As you are aware I have written to you off-line to apologize in the event that my request was offensive and received no response from you. Izzy: I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy. jt: I've already done the off-line thing Izzy; scripture teaches that when we go to the altar to pray and we know a brother or sister has something against us to go to that one which is what I did. However just recently you wrote: "I find you to be impossibly contentious. Therefore I do not enjoy interacting with you. In fact, I’d rather spend the day eating worms. I appreciate your acute willingness to offer your opinion and advice, but please rest assured that I will ask for it if I want it" jt: I don't always agree with you and others but it's not my heart to be 'contentious' for contention' sake. This list is called Truth Talk isn't it? I find the above sarcastic and mean spirited which is hardly Christian Love I am not angry with you. You are the one with the anger so if I am wrong then what IS the problem? You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Kevin, What leads you to think I am not on “the narrow way”? Reading Scott Peck? How would you suggest I get onto the narrow way? What does the narrow way mean to you, and how does that relate to reading Peck? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious That is what happens to the Lost. Blind follow Blind both fall in the ditch. Peck is on the Broadway. Hope you get on the narrow way. ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So well put, Bill. You have a gift for that. I think your theological instinct is what I mean by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. He gives you this thought/idea/concept and then elaborates upon it. Then you realize that it was stated, in one way or another, in scripture all alongyou just never saw it quite that way before. And you are also rightwords fail to express the fullness of the meaning. One thing I like about Scott Peck is his absolute transparency about his own spiritual quest. For him, Buddhism was one step along the path to real Truth. He says if he hadnt learned the concept of paradox from Buddhism, he could never have ultimately embraced Christianity, which is full of paradox. I enjoy watching spiritual growthat whatever point it is. Peck has not yet arrived, just like the rest of us. We Believers are all on our own spiritual paths towards Jesus, helping each other as we go along, cheering one another on, gently helping each other up when we stumble. (If we are walking in love.) I really like Pecks explanation of the Stages of Faith. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Izzy, Have you ever treaded glass so as to stay away from stickers? I did not really know what to do with Peck. As I said, I am not all that familiar with him. I wasn't aware of what Judy shared, for instance. However, I have been misunderstood enough times to know that I should extend to others, whether it be Peck or pelicans, the opportunity to plea. Nuance is necessary if we are going to actually have a living language. Without nuance words become redundant and reductive; they lose there punch. Context is so important, too. I just can't stress enough (nor with you do I feel the need to) that words mean things imbedded in context. They're loose and perverted when flopped and hopped from bed to bed. Sherrie used the word "contextualized" to make a very valid point. I appreciated her for that. And so I did not want to fall out of bed, nor did I feel happy snuggling up to what he said. Thank you for giving me something more through which to begin to understand him. I appreciate that. Theological instinct is kind of like what happens when you begin to know things about God that are not explicitly stated in Scripture. Yet they are as true as if they were. An example of this is in the Greek word perichoresis. The word itself means something like "about the dance" or "concerning the dance." The early church borrowed this word to speak to the interaction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible never actually or explicitly describes that interaction in terms of a dance, but the church saw the give and take, the lead and follow, the love and appropriateness of the closeness of the Father - Son relationship, and likened it to the beauty of dance. That's pretty cool I think. Perichoresis can also mean something like "about the choir." Think of the beauty and the harmony of voices coming together make a distinct sound; then think of the equally beautiful sound of distinct voices emerging to take the lead from time to time. They saw this in that Triune relationship. I think that's helpful; I think that's saying something as true as if it were Written. I think that's pretty cool. That's theological instinct -- knowing more than we can say. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote The Road Less Traveled he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasnt quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Pecks unconscious is the same as your spiritual instinct.. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, This is the last time I am writing back to you. I have no recollection of you sending me an email offline in December. Sorry if that bothers you. I did look at the last statement I emailed to you on 12/22/03 before I left TT which was: “Since you don’t seem to be happy unless I am ensnared in your pointless bickering, you will have to enjoy your “grace and peace” without me.” I wrote to you yesterday that I find you to be impossibly contentious. I failed to add that I also find you to be terribly controlling and meddlesome. (I honestly don’t mind if you have those qualities, as long as you do not impose them on me, personally.) To answer your question, “THAT IS THE PROBLEM.” I am only angry when you won’t leave me alone. You make me feel like I am being stalked. So please do both of us a favor: Don’t talk about me or to me, either on-line or off-line, and please stay out of my conversations. That way we won’t bother each other, and I can enjoy TT without feeling harassed to the point of leaving. I enjoyed many friends on TT for many years before you arrived, and I would prefer to stay a while longer. I am sure you have many wonderful qualities, most of which elude me. I am sure that is my failing and not yours. May God bless you richly, and fulfill your every heart’s desire. I hate confrontations, and this has been quite a growth experience for me. Thanks very much. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what “issue” you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from “the past”, please be assured that I don’t even remember it. jt: Normal ppl are not hostile as you are toward me without a reason. I believe this goes back to sometime before Christmas when I asked you not to interject 'cute one-liners' in emails between me and the Mormon boys. I was new to the list at the time and so didn't know what you had learned already. As you are aware I have written to you off-line to apologize in the event that my request was offensive and received no response from you. Izzy: I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy. jt: I've already done the off-line thing Izzy; scripture teaches that when we go to the altar to pray and we know a brother or sister has something against us to go to that one which is what I did. However just recently you wrote: "I find you to be impossibly contentious. Therefore I do not enjoy interacting with you. In fact, I’d rather spend the day eating worms. I appreciate your acute willingness to offer your opinion and advice, but please rest assured that I will ask for it if I want it" jt: I don't always agree with you and others but it's not my heart to be 'contentious' for contention' sake. This list is called Truth Talk isn't it? I find the above sarcastic and mean spirited which is hardly Christian Love I am not angry with you. You are the one with the anger so if I am wrong then what IS the problem? You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:46:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does that bother you? Come on Kevin. You are not being nice. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
judyt writes: Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ? No. What "activated" the New Covenant was the blood of Christ. Perhaps you should read Jeremiah 31:31-34. The New is totally different from the Old. Sins will not be a part of God's consideration. God will be known in a personal and individual way, not through the art form of preaching. Preaching can only tell you ABOUT God. With he new covenant, God is experiencially known. The law will become an inward passion (faith) as opposed to the Old and overt system of commands. That is what this Jeremiah passasges says. This passage is absolutely the most important Old Covenant scripture regarding the New Covenant. We should all read it, memorize it, and study the new scriptures in the context of this passage. The following is quoted from the New Living Bible, a translation of the Billy Graham people (and others). " The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made wih their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of he land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife, says the Lord. But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord. I will put my laws in heir minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to each their family saying "You should know the Lord," for everyone, from he least to the greatest, will already know me, says the Lord. And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins. How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" I asked this question in the previous email. You did not deal with it at all. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? The biblical reference is Romans 4:5: But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Nestle/Aland English translation). Another question you decided to ignore. You must be reading the non-inspired version (NIV); the second part of that verse is also important. "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Here, you completely misuse the reference. But, first, your characterization of the NIV -- actually you are right. It is uninspired as are all the other translation. Back Romans 8:1. Lets start with "therefore" shall we? That word means " in view of what I have just said." And what was that -- that we are involved in a war between good and evil. For a Christian, we serve the law of sin in our flesh and the law of God (faith) in our minds (Ro 7:25). All of this is present tense. Verse 25 is a problem, because death is the deserved consequence, so Paul solves the problem in 8:1 by saying "there is no problem (condemnation)," but this promise is offered to those who walk in the spirit, as you so aptly point out. And what is walking in the spirit? Your teaching would have us believe that "walking in the spirit" is a contradiction to the words of 7:25 -- that it is doing the right thing. Simply an impossible conclusion in view of the fact that Paul has JUST concluded that this warfare, the doing of sin, continues for all Christians. So what is "walking in the spirit?" Well, just read 8:5. Walking in the flesh is having YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE FLESH and walking in the spirit is HAVING YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE SPIRIT. Notice how this ties in with Jere 31 "I will put it in their minds and write it on their hearts." Ro 8:5 defines flesh and spirit in terms of a state of mind as opposed to an act of righteousness (or right living). God Bless John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
That is what happens to the Lost. Blind follow Blind both fall in the ditch. Peck is on the Broadway. Hope you get on the narrow way.ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So well put, Bill. You have a gift for that. I think your theological instinct is what I mean by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. He gives you this thought/idea/concept and then elaborates upon it. Then you realize that it was stated, in one way or another, in scripture all alongyou just never saw it quite that way before. And you are also rightwords fail to express the fullness of the meaning. One thing I like about Scott Peck is his absolute transparency about his own spiritual quest. For him, Buddhism was one step along the path to real Truth. He says if he hadnt learned the concept of paradox from Buddhism, he could never have ultimately embraced Christianity, which is full of paradox. I enjoy watching spiritual growthat whatever point it is. Peck has not yet arrived, just like the rest of us. We Believers are all on our own spiritual paths towards Jesus, helping each other as we go along, cheering one another on, gently helping each other up when we stumble. (If we are walking in love.) I really like Pecks explanation of the Stages of Faith. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Izzy, Have you ever treaded glass so as to stay away from stickers? I did not really know what to do with Peck. As I said, I am not all that familiar with him. I wasn't aware of what Judy shared, for instance. However, I have been misunderstood enough times to know that I should extend to others, whether it be Peck or pelicans, the opportunity to plea. Nuance is necessary if we are going to actually have a living language. Without nuance words become redundant and reductive; they lose there punch. Context is so important, too. I just can't stress enough (nor with you do I feel the need to) that words mean things imbedded in context. They're loose and perverted when flopped and hopped from bed to bed. Sherrie used the word "contextualized" to make a very valid point. I appreciated her for that. And so I did not want to fall out of bed, nor did I feel happy snuggling up to what he said. Thank you for giving me something more through which to begin to understand him. I appreciate that. Theological instinct is kind of like what happens when you begin to know things about God that are not explicitly stated in Scripture. Yet they are as true as if they were. An example of this is in the Greek word perichoresis. The word itself means something like "about the dance" or "concerning the dance." The early church borrowed this word to speak to the interaction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible never actually or explicitly describes that interaction in terms of a dance, but the church saw the give and take, the lead and follow, the love and appropriateness of the closeness of the Father - Son relationship, and likened it to the beauty of dance. That's pretty cool I think. Perichoresis can also mean something like "about the choir." Think of the beauty and the harmony of voices coming together make a distinct sound; then think of the equally beautiful sound of distinct voices emerging to take the lead from time to time. They saw this in that Triune relationship. I think that's helpful; I think that's saying something as true as if it were Written. I think that's pretty cool. That's theological instinct -- knowing more than we can say. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote The Road Less Traveled he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasnt quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Pecks unconscious is the same as your spiritual instinct.. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuance his words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pant
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
What is the problem? Judy knows what she believes and believes it firmly. Does that bother you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:23:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get over it John Be nice, Kevin. I am. John, a brother in Christ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
No! Judy. This is what John wrote > Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit. Obedience is what counts. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WALKING DUMB. THE BORDERLINE GUYS. MY POST IS CLEAR ON THAT. YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE POST BEFORE YOU START YOUR RESPONSE. jt: I responded to the one line you wrote John. How am I supposed to know what you have not written. I can't read your mind. . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..> Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. Judy, You are the one who caused the ambiguity. The one line that John wrote was actually two before you destroyed the context. The second line qualifies the first and gives it meaning. His words become vague only after the two lines are separated. You did this to yourself, Judy. Please stop the non-sense. You say that you are not trying to be contentious. FINE. I will take your word for it. Please consider some simple suggestions. Read the whole post before responding to any of it. Read for understanding NOT for an opening to attack. Do not look for excuses to rebuke. Read to learn first and disagree only after seeking clarification. Hold off on the rebuke until after you have exhausted all possibility that you too may be part of the problem. Please observe these simple rules of etiquette and see if we do not all experience an amazing change of climate. Respectfully, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. jt: On the day of Pentecost it was God adding to the Church and Peter preached truth did he not? Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ?john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. jt: Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law that every mouth should be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God (Rom 3:19) V.20 Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. jt: OK, when Paul spoke about becoming all things to all men so that he might win some he spoke about being under the law to win Jews and without the law for Gentiles; and he goes on to explain that he was not an entire anarchist because he was under the law of Christ (this is where believers are to walk). He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. john: And why is it necessary for God
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. jt: On the day of Pentecost it was God adding to the Church and Peter preached truth did he not? Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ?john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. jt: Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law that every mouth should be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God (Rom 3:19) V.20 Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. jt: OK, when Paul spoke about becoming all things to all men so that he might win some he spoke about being under the law to win Jews and without the law for Gentiles; and he goes on to explain that he was not an entire anarchist because he was under the law of Christ (this is where believers are to walk). He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. EXCEPT FOR THE GUY IN ROMANS 2:12FF. AND YOUR EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM IS NOT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT PAUL IS MAKING GO BACK AND READ ROMANS 4. THE POINT IS THAT ABRAHAM COULD DO NOTHING BUT ACCEPT WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT HIS (ABRAHAM'S) OFFSPRING -- THAt IS THE BIBLICAL EXAMPLE. jt: Only if you are a Calvinist. Abraham BELIEVED God and that was counted to him for righteousness. He willingly left all he had known in Ur to depart for the unknown - looking for a city whose builder and maker was God and God called him 'his friend'. It's not God's way to force His will; we choose whom we will serve and that way if we spend eternity in the wrong place that is also our choice. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. ROMANS 7 DESCRIBES THE ADDICTED -- TO A TEE. VERSE 25 CLEARLY SAYS THAT HIS PROBLEM CONTINUES BUT (8:1) WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. jt: You must be reading the non-inspired version (NIV); the second part of that verse is also important. "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." tHE GLORY OF THE GOSPEL BY GRACE IS THAT THE ADDICT HAS ALL THE TIME HE NEEDS TO OVERCOME HIS PROBLEM. YOU SAY THAT HE HAS NO TIME. NONSENSE. jt: When did I say he had 'no time?' I've never said anything like that. However, those not walking after the Spirit in Christ are in the flesh and still under condemnation.john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. THE GUY DIED YESTERDAY. NOW WHAT. jt: Not your problem or mine, God is big enough to deal with it.john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off t
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:23:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get over it John Be nice, Kevin. I am. John, a brother in Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 8:40:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. EXCEPT FOR THE GUY IN ROMANS 2:12FF. AND YOUR EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM IS NOT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT PAUL IS MAKING. GO BACK AND READ ROMANS 4. THE POINT IS THAT ABRAHAM COULD DO NOTHING BUT ACCEPT WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT HIS (ABRAHAM'S) OFFSPRING -- THAt IS THE BIBLICAL EXAMPLE. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. ROMANS 7 DESCRIBES THE ADDICTED -- TO A TEE. VERSE 25 CLEARLY SAYS THAT HIS PROBLEM CONTINUES BUT (8:1) WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. tHE GLORY OF THE GOSPEL BY GRACE IS THAT THE ADDICT HAS ALL THE TIME HE NEEDS TO OVERCOME HIS PROBLEM. YOU SAY THAT HE HAS NO TIME. NONSENSE. john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. THE GUY DIED YESTERDAY. NOW WHAT. john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off than the dead 'religious' because he sees it for what it is. God's mercy is available to him also; the professing church is full of the wounded and walking dead. APPARENTLY NOT IN YOUR CHURCH. AS I READ YOUR GOSPEL, ALL THEIR SIN PROBLEMS HAVE VANIISHED. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit. Obedience is what counts. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WALKING DUMB. THE BORDERLINE GUYS. MY POST IS CLEAR ON THAT. YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE POST BEFORE YOU START YOUR RESPONSE. john: Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. jt: Noone has the whole loaf. Jesus keeps us dependent upon himself and this is why when he ascended he gave gifts to men which are dispensed by the Holy Spirit as HE WILLS. However, since the CofC is against music they are most likely closed to 1 Corinthians 12 also as are some other denominations so the professing church today is powerless and divided. All we can receive are a few crumbs. NOT SURE WHY YOU THREW IN THE SLAM AGAINST THE C OF C. I AM FOURSQUARE BY DENOMINATIONAL CHOICE. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT ONE OF GOD'S GIFTS IS A SMART PILL TO THE EFFECTUAL DUMB? judyt ACTUALLY, THE ONLY THING HAT I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IS THE ISSUE OF SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF GOD. THAT'S IT. GRACE TO YOU JOHN
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. john: Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. jt: I just recently went over all this with DavidM; Agabus prophesied by the Spirit of God and in spite of Paul listening to the elders and going to the temple the Jews bound him anyway. john: More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was the reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). jt: I agree with you about Paul's problems but these Jews were not 'in the faith' Look at what Paul writes to the church at Galatia who had come under their influence. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER GOSPEL which is not another; but there would be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ" and in Chapter 3 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth" john: Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. jt: There are Jews who say they are Christian. However, if they have put themselves back under the Levitical law their faith is in vain. It's obeying the truth that get's one into the right Kingdom. Jesus now has the covenant and he is the mediator, not the law of Moses. john: Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. jt: It's nice in Virginia today also, spring is in the air. judyt
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off than the dead 'religious' because he sees it for what it is. God's mercy is available to him also; the professing church is full of the wounded and walking dead. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit. Obedience is what counts. john: Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. jt: Noone has the whole loaf. Jesus keeps us dependent upon himself and this is why when he ascended he gave gifts to men which are dispensed by the Holy Spirit as HE WILLS. However, since the CofC is against music they are most likely closed to 1 Corinthians 12 also as are some other denominations so the professing church today is powerless and divided. All we can receive are a few crumbs. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what “issue” you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from “the past”, please be assured that I don’t even remember it. jt: Normal ppl are not hostile as you are toward me without a reason. I believe this goes back to sometime before Christmas when I asked you not to interject 'cute one-liners' in emails between me and the Mormon boys. I was new to the list at the time and so didn't know what you had learned already. As you are aware I have written to you off-line to apologize in the event that my request was offensive and received no response from you. Izzy: I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy. jt: I've already done the off-line thing Izzy; scripture teaches that when we go to the altar to pray and we know a brother or sister has something against us to go to that one which is what I did. However just recently you wrote: "I find you to be impossibly contentious. Therefore I do not enjoy interacting with you. In fact, I’d rather spend the day eating worms. I appreciate your acute willingness to offer your opinion and advice, but please rest assured that I will ask for it if I want it" jt: I don't always agree with you and others but it's not my heart to be 'contentious' for contention' sake. This list is called Truth Talk isn't it? I find the above sarcastic and mean spirited which is hardly Christian Love I am not angry with you. You are the one with the anger so if I am wrong then what IS the problem? You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what “issue” you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from “the past”, please be assured that I don’t even remember it. I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you
will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list
that we were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had
actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one
side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in my time zone)
you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with
John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you
responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one
thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you
have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that
you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am
also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before
you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is
that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you
believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along
better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for
almost a day.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 5:13
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to
understand, why aren't you being
a little more cautious about jumping in the
middle of conversations I am having
with someone else? Why not stay away from those
conversations? You obviously
know there is a great
potential for greater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem
is not so much with the words I'm using, but the
ones you use.
jt: Maybe because it's a public
list and it is about Truth which is something I am
interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations
should go off list along
with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to
challenge someone's ideas
and another to attack their person.
Do you consider your ideas,
Polanyi's and
Newbigin's sacred Bill?
judyt
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
If you had been respecting my request, you
would not even have been asking questions, Judy.
BT
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt
says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking
if it is OK to
add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that
but I've
heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong
with calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have
actually said what I wanted to say?
I very explicitly and nicely asked you to
please hold off judgment on this until I
had actually written
something. Why were you unwilling to do this?
jt: I did not see that it all
flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the
other. In fact, I have a
difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying
most of the time. Do you
consider asking a question the same as making
a
judgment? jt
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that
language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I
would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one
which takes into view some of the things others have been
saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this
is why there is such confusion. bt:
Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself).
But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a
chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the
question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of
sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still
his but expressed in fresh language. Please be patient,
Bill
- Original
Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconsciou
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Get over it John Do you want Judy to be as wishy washy as some on this list that still have not found the truth?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/26/2004 8:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt says You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. Mine is the gunslinger scenario. There you are on your white horse, riding down the main street of Dodge, "throwing lead" just as fast as you can pull the trigger. You may not believe this, but each person on this list is accomplished in some area of discussion with the possible exception of G. I avoid those thread I have little interest in, such as the Polanyi discussion. But even in that thread, there has been several posts that I have saved. The Mormon boys are here to probably convert the rest of us which forces some on the list to sharpen their understanding of why they claim the name of Christ and recognize the biblical message as the revelatory kingpin of the faith. Because the message of grace is just as obvious in the Mormon Bible as in ours, the opportunity for commonality is always there with them. They do not have to reject their faith in order to accept Christ and the larger fellowship of the saints any more than the Jews of the first church had to forsake their sense of religion (Judaism) when they came to a knowledge of Christ. Pick a couple of threads and, if you are not here to learn and receive, then use those threads to shape your ability to communicate. A preacher who has not converts is just another guy who likes to talk. If you are neither improving your personal ability and rhetoric or learning and growing as a result of being on this list, then why are you here? By the way, there really is not an answer to that question. Slow down, unload and grow in your own way. John smithson Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to
understand, why aren't you being
a little more cautious about jumping in the middle
of conversations I am having
with someone else? Why not stay away from those
conversations? You obviously
know there is a great
potential for greater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem
is not so much with the words I'm using, but the
ones you use.
jt: Maybe because it's a public list
and it is about Truth which is something I am
interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations
should go off list along
with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to
challenge someone's ideas
and another to attack their person.
Do you consider your ideas,
Polanyi's and
Newbigin's sacred Bill?
judyt
From:
Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
If you had been respecting my request, you would
not even have been asking questions, Judy.
BT
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt says > Let
me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to
add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that
but I've
heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with
calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have
actually said what I wanted to say?
I very explicitly and nicely asked you to
please hold off judgment on this until I
had actually written something. Why
were you unwilling to do this?
jt: I did not see that it all
flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the
other. In fact, I have a
difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying
most of the time. Do you
consider asking a question the same as making
a
judgment? jt
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that
language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I
would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one
which takes into view some of the things others have been
saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this
is why there is such confusion. bt:
Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But
I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a
chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the
question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts
between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but
expressed in fresh language. Please be patient,
Bill
- Original
Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are
you asking if it is OK to add to or
subtract from God's Word? I know you would not
call it that but I've heard
so much about wordsmithing in recent days -
what's wrong with calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there room in the
professing church for a convergence of sorts between
God's spoken words
and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.
John:
I would
say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a
church fragmented
by
thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in
the name of
"truth."
What are
there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the
professing
church.
Thank
God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the
Lamb.
jt: So long as God is still God
and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not
the victim of anything.
Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say
that
God's grace and the blood of
the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that
God will validate all of
the things you mention above anyway?
judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, now that that's settled I guess we can
get back to real fellowship.
Whose turn is it to bring the meat
loaf?
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt wrote: Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? God's grace and the continual flow of he blood do not validate sin, my dear. But, of course, you know that. God through Christ does not justify sin, but He does justify the sinner. jt: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. Jesus is returning for a Church without spot, wrinkle, and/or blemish. A victorious church. Now that we have cleared that up, something about the point I was making in the email. The professing church is no place for open questioning and heart felt debate. It does not have the mentality for spirited disagreement. jt: Then the professing church should 'examine itself' to see whether or not it is in the faith. And those who disagree have never been in a running debate that placed them on the nontraditional side of the issue. The church has no idea how to handle those who come to the "wrong" conclusion. jt: What's wrong with "Preach the word; (rather than everyone's ideas about it) be instant, in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2) Apparently the blood of Christ protects from moral failing but not from wrong doctrinal decisions. There is much I could say as an indictment against the church. But, of course, God knew that the church would fail if the standard of measurement was right acting. jt: He knew because He is God but He gave His best so that we might act right; Christ is everything we need for life and godliness; so what's the excuse? He left us an example that we should follow in His steps. His plan for saving man from himself is one that works even when man does not -- even when His church does not. Paul put it this way -- it is before our own master that we either sand or fall and we will be made to stand (kind of Romans 14:4). jt: When we do things God's way we will and this (Rom 14) is in the context of a very young believer and their conscience concerning food. I don't believe God is in the business or propping up an apostate mess that claims to belong to Him. In light of Romans 11, I believe He expects us to grow or we will also be cut off. I get a little ticked when I speak of the professing church -- but God does not and my opinion does not count. jt: How do you know He doesn't get upset? Have you spent much time in the OT? So, yes, God solved the problem. He does exactly the same thing for you and me. I am no better than the church I complain against. Hopefully this helps you to understand at least my point of view. John Smithson jt: I see what you have written John but I don't see your POV in scripture. judyt
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/26/2004 8:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt says What does jt say? I don't see anything in this space. You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Mine is the gunslinger scenario. There you are on your white horse, riding down the main street of Dodge, "throwing lead" just as fast as you can pull the trigger. jt: Oh! Not more of this, when are we going to lay aside vain imaginations and deal with what is relevant?You may not believe this, but each person on this list is accomplished in some area of discussion with the possible exception of G. jt: How do you know this in such a short time - and what's wrong with 'G'? Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical, but I find he has a good sense of humor and is good for a laugh. He is also a poet. He may be different but he is not destructive. I avoid those thread I have little interest in, such as the Polanyi discussion. But even in that thread, there has been several posts that I have saved. The Mormon boys are here to probably convert the rest of us which forces some on the list to sharpen their understanding of why they claim the name of Christ and recognize the biblical message as the revelatory kingpin of the faith. Because the message of grace is just as obvious in the Mormon Bible as in ours, the opportunity for commonality is always there with them. jt: They are taught that they have the full revelation and we just have a part. They do not have to reject their faith in order to accept Christ and the larger fellowship of the saints any more than the Jews of the first church had to forsake their sense of religion (Judaism) when they came to a knowledge of Christ. jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Christ is all in all. It's Him plus nothing. Jews must give up their rituals and Mormons their heresy. Pick a couple of threads and, if you are not here to learn and receive, then use those threads to shape your ability to communicate. A preacher who has not converts is just another guy who likes to talk. If you are neither improving your personal ability and rhetoric or learning and growing as a result of being on this list, then why are you here? jt: Why would you think I am not learning and growing?By the way, there really is not an answer to that question. Slow down, unload and grow in your own way. John smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/26/2004 9:47:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt God's grace and the continual flow of he blood do not validate sin, my dear. But, of course, you know that. God through Christ does not justify sin, but He does justify the sinner. Now that we have cleared that up, something about the point I was making in the email. The professing church is no place for open questioning and heart felt debate. It does not have the mentality for spirited disagreement. And those who disagree have never been in a running debate that placed them on the nontraditional side of the issue. The church has no idea how to handle those who come to the "wrong" conclusion. Apparently the blood of Christ protects from moral failing but not from wrong doctrinal decisions. There is much I could say as an indictment against the church. But, of course, God knew that the church would fail if the standard of measurement was right acting. His plan for saving man from himself is one that works even when man does not -- even when His church does not. Paul put it this way -- it is before our own master that we either sand or fall and we will be made to stand (kind of Romans 14:4). I get a little ticked when I speak of the professing church -- but God does not and my opinion does not count. So, yes, God solved the problem. He does exactly the same thing for you and me. I am no better than the church I complain against. Hopefully this helps you to understand at least my point of view. John Smithson
Fw: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potential for greater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. God bless you, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something. Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time. Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. Please be patient, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. John: I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
If you had been respecting my request, you would
not even have been asking questions, Judy.
BT
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt says > Let me
try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to
add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but
I've
heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with
calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have
actually said what I wanted to say?
I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please
hold off judgment on this until I
had actually written something. Why
were you unwilling to do this?
jt: I did not see that it all
flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the
other. In fact, I have a
difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying
most of the time. Do you
consider asking a question the same as making
a
judgment? jt
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that
language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I
would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one
which takes into view some of the things others have been
saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is
why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps,
to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I would
like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share
in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room
in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken
words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh
language. Please be
patient,
Bill
- Original Message
-
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you
asking if it is OK to add to or
subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call
it that but I've heard
so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's
wrong with calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there room in the
professing church for a convergence of sorts between
God's spoken words and words
spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.
John:
I would
say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a
church fragmented
by
thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in
the name of
"truth."
What are
there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the
professing
church.
Thank God
for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb.
jt: So long as God is still God
and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not
the victim of anything. Our
faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that
God's grace and the blood of the
lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that
God will validate all of
the things you mention above anyway?
judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, now that that's settled I guess we can
get back to real fellowship.
Whose turn is it to bring the meat
loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/26/2004 8:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt says You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. Mine is the gunslinger scenario. There you are on your white horse, riding down the main street of Dodge, "throwing lead" just as fast as you can pull the trigger. You may not believe this, but each person on this list is accomplished in some area of discussion with the possible exception of G. I avoid those thread I have little interest in, such as the Polanyi discussion. But even in that thread, there has been several posts that I have saved. The Mormon boys are here to probably convert the rest of us which forces some on the list to sharpen their understanding of why they claim the name of Christ and recognize the biblical message as the revelatory kingpin of the faith. Because the message of grace is just as obvious in the Mormon Bible as in ours, the opportunity for commonality is always there with them. They do not have to reject their faith in order to accept Christ and the larger fellowship of the saints any more than the Jews of the first church had to forsake their sense of religion (Judaism) when they came to a knowledge of Christ. Pick a couple of threads and, if you are not here to learn and receive, then use those threads to shape your ability to communicate. A preacher who has not converts is just another guy who likes to talk. If you are neither improving your personal ability and rhetoric or learning and growing as a result of being on this list, then why are you here? By the way, there really is not an answer to that question. Slow down, unload and grow in your own way. John smithson
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something. Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time. Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. Please be patient, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. John: I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/26/2004 7:33:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A pot luck's a pot luck. And balony is balony (I actually do not have you in mind -- trust me0. J
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
jt says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something. Why were you unwilling to do this? Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. Please be patient, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. John: I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
A pot luck's a pot luck. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/26/2004 6:41:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf? Meatloaf or big four pound tube of bolany? John
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. John: I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/26/2004 6:41:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf? Meatloaf or big four pound tube of bolany? John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/26/2004 12:20:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/26/2004 12:20:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. John
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:32
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part
of our problem?
bt: Yes I would. I want to respond
to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some
of the things others have been saying.
Jung changed the words because he knew ppl would reject him if he told
them the truth.
bt: If he was doing that to deceive
people, he was wrong. If was doing it to purvey truth (thank you, Marlin) to
people unaccustomed to biblical terminalogy or put off by it, then he may have
been attempting to do right. I'm not as familiar as you with him, so I'll
trust your insight here.
I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why
there is such confusion.
bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have
been (in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold
off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later
on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing
church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words
spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.
Please be patient,
Bill
Why don't we call things what God calls them in His Word?
Jung is one thing, he was bitter toward his father and alienated from the life
of God. The professing church is another.
judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jt > "We
ignore them and hope they will go away."
Yeah, I hear that. It seems that there is no
clear discernment in this area. Either we do as you say and never address the
problem, or we go to the other extreme and start dusting demons out of the
church and exercising pews. There does need to be some wisdom here,
leaders with spiritual discernment.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:54
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
I know I'm not Bill but I do know about F. Scott Peck and his books
"The People of the Lie" and "The Road Less Travelled" Peck is into
the New Age concepts and he has Buddhist leanings so when he speaks of
god within it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The term "unconscious" is from psychology by way of Carl Jung. We
are not parts of God. He is Creator (transcendent) and we are part of
His creation. However, he did create us spirit beings with a soul and a body
so what Jung calls the "unconscious" is the human spirit. The
"collective unconscious" is the powers of darkness that all unregenerated
ppl and some church members are tapped into; it is full of dark shadows and
archetypes (in Jungs words); they are called demons in scripture and
most church people do not like to talk about them. We ignore them and
hope they will go away.
judyt
Bill,
The picture you
drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think
of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road
Less Traveled”?---
“If you want to
know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you
desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this
suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the
interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our
unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has
been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on
to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Izzy
Think with me
for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How
does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close
our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe
beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime
with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is
wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How
do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not
originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are
relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational
God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit.
When I think
about defining &
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
So well put, Bill. You have a gift for that. I think your “theological instinct” is what I mean by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. He gives you this thought/idea/concept and then elaborates upon it. Then you realize that it was stated, in one way or another, in scripture all along—you just never saw it quite that way before. And you are also right—words fail to express the fullness of the meaning. One thing I like about Scott Peck is his absolute transparency about his own spiritual quest. For him, Buddhism was one step along the path to real Truth. He says if he hadn’t learned the concept of “paradox” from Buddhism, he could never have ultimately embraced Christianity, which is full of paradox. I enjoy watching spiritual growth—at whatever point it is. Peck has not yet “arrived”, just like the rest of us. We Believers are all on our own spiritual paths towards Jesus, helping each other as we go along, cheering one another on, gently helping each other up when we stumble. (If we are walking in love.) I really like Peck’s explanation of the Stages of Faith. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Izzy, Have you ever treaded glass so as to stay away from stickers? I did not really know what to do with Peck. As I said, I am not all that familiar with him. I wasn't aware of what Judy shared, for instance. However, I have been misunderstood enough times to know that I should extend to others, whether it be Peck or pelicans, the opportunity to plea. Nuance is necessary if we are going to actually have a living language. Without nuance words become redundant and reductive; they lose there punch. Context is so important, too. I just can't stress enough (nor with you do I feel the need to) that words mean things imbedded in context. They're loose and perverted when flopped and hopped from bed to bed. Sherrie used the word "contextualized" to make a very valid point. I appreciated her for that. And so I did not want to fall out of bed, nor did I feel happy snuggling up to what he said. Thank you for giving me something more through which to begin to understand him. I appreciate that. Theological instinct is kind of like what happens when you begin to know things about God that are not explicitly stated in Scripture. Yet they are as true as if they were. An example of this is in the Greek word perichoresis. The word itself means something like "about the dance" or "concerning the dance." The early church borrowed this word to speak to the interaction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible never actually or explicitly describes that interaction in terms of a dance, but the church saw the give and take, the lead and follow, the love and appropriateness of the closeness of the Father - Son relationship, and likened it to the beauty of dance. That's pretty cool I think. Perichoresis can also mean something like "about the choir." Think of the beauty and the harmony of voices coming together make a distinct sound; then think of the equally beautiful sound of distinct voices emerging to take the lead from time to time. They saw this in that Triune relationship. I think that's helpful; I think that's saying something as true as if it were Written. I think that's pretty cool. That's theological instinct -- knowing more than we can say. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote “The Road Less Traveled” he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasn’t quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Peck’s “unconscious” is the same as your “spiritual instinct”. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuance his words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though, before I should want to conclude that this is
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Izzy,
Have you ever treaded glass so as to stay away from
stickers? I did not really know what to do with Peck. As I said, I am not all
that familiar with him. I wasn't aware of what Judy shared, for instance.
However, I have been misunderstood enough times to know that I should extend to
others, whether it be Peck or pelicans, the opportunity to plea. Nuance is
necessary if we are going to actually have a living language. Without nuance
words become redundant and reductive; they lose there punch. Context is so
important, too. I just can't stress enough (nor with you do I feel the need
to) that words mean things imbedded in context. They're loose and perverted
when flopped and hopped from bed to bed. Sherrie used the word "contextualized"
to make a very valid point. I appreciated her for that. And so I did not want to
fall out of bed, nor did I feel happy snuggling up to what he said. Thank you
for giving me something more through which to begin to understand him. I
appreciate that.
Theological instinct is kind of like what happens
when you begin to know things about God that are not explicitly stated in
Scripture. Yet they are as true as if they were. An example of this is in the
Greek word perichoresis. The word itself means something like
"about the dance" or "concerning the dance." The early church borrowed this
word to speak to the interaction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit.
The Bible never actually or explicitly describes that interaction in terms of a
dance, but the church saw the give and take, the lead and follow, the love
and appropriateness of the closeness of the Father - Son relationship, and
likened it to the beauty of dance. That's pretty cool I think.
Perichoresis can also mean something like "about the choir." Think of
the beauty and the harmony of voices coming together make a distinct sound;
then think of the equally beautiful sound of distinct voices emerging to
take the lead from time to time. They saw this in that Triune relationship. I
think that's helpful; I think that's saying something as true as if it were
Written. I think that's pretty cool. That's theological instinct -- knowing more
than we can say.
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:44
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
Bill, In later books
Peck makes it clear that when he wrote “The Road Less Traveled” he was just
about to come to know the Lord. He wasn’t quite there yet, but very
close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ
personally). I was just wondering if Peck’s “unconscious” is the same as your
“spiritual instinct”. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Wm.
TaylorSent: Friday, March
26, 2004 8:50 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our
unconscious
"Then he goes on to
explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy
Spirit."
Izzy, I am not
familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation
for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuance his words and attach them
to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to
say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were
being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move
me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though,
before I should want to conclude that this is indeed what he is doing or
saying, I would want to know how he nuances this language with Scripture. Is
that okay?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: ShieldsFamily
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
March 26, 2004 6:53 AM
Subject:
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Bill,
The picture you
drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think
of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road
Less Traveled”?---
“If you want to
know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you
desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this
suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the
interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our
unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has
been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on
to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Izzy
Think with me
for a moment about
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote “The Road Less Traveled” he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasn’t quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Peck’s “unconscious” is the same as your “spiritual instinct”. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuance his words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though, before I should want to conclude that this is indeed what he is doing or saying, I would want to know how he nuances this language with Scripture. Is that okay? Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:53 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, The picture you drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road Less Traveled”?--- “If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? Jung changed the words because he knew ppl would reject him if he told them the truth. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. Why don't we call things what God calls them in His Word? Jung is one thing, he was bitter toward his father and alienated from the life of God. The professing church is another. judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt > "We ignore them and hope they will go away." Yeah, I hear that. It seems that there is no clear discernment in this area. Either we do as you say and never address the problem, or we go to the other extreme and start dusting demons out of the church and exercising pews. There does need to be some wisdom here, leaders with spiritual discernment. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious I know I'm not Bill but I do know about F. Scott Peck and his books "The People of the Lie" and "The Road Less Travelled" Peck is into the New Age concepts and he has Buddhist leanings so when he speaks of god within it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term "unconscious" is from psychology by way of Carl Jung. We are not parts of God. He is Creator (transcendent) and we are part of His creation. However, he did create us spirit beings with a soul and a body so what Jung calls the "unconscious" is the human spirit. The "collective unconscious" is the powers of darkness that all unregenerated ppl and some church members are tapped into; it is full of dark shadows and archetypes (in Jungs words); they are called demons in scripture and most church people do not like to talk about them. We ignore them and hope they will go away. judyt Bill, The picture you drew about Gods beauty brought tears to my eyesso true! What do you think of M. Scott Pecks words in The Road Less Traveled?--- If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
jt > "We ignore them and hope they will go away." Yeah, I hear that. It seems that there is no clear discernment in this area. Either we do as you say and never address the problem, or we go to the other extreme and start dusting demons out of the church and exercising pews. There does need to be some wisdom here, leaders with spiritual discernment. Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious I know I'm not Bill but I do know about F. Scott Peck and his books "The People of the Lie" and "The Road Less Travelled" Peck is into the New Age concepts and he has Buddhist leanings so when he speaks of god within it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term "unconscious" is from psychology by way of Carl Jung. We are not parts of God. He is Creator (transcendent) and we are part of His creation. However, he did create us spirit beings with a soul and a body so what Jung calls the "unconscious" is the human spirit. The "collective unconscious" is the powers of darkness that all unregenerated ppl and some church members are tapped into; it is full of dark shadows and archetypes (in Jungs words); they are called demons in scripture and most church people do not like to talk about them. We ignore them and hope they will go away. judyt Bill, The picture you drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road Less Traveled”?--- “If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
I know I'm not Bill but I do know about F. Scott Peck and his books "The People of the Lie" and "The Road Less Travelled" Peck is into the New Age concepts and he has Buddhist leanings so when he speaks of god within it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The term "unconscious" is from psychology by way of Carl Jung. We are not parts of God. He is Creator (transcendent) and we are part of His creation. However, he did create us spirit beings with a soul and a body so what Jung calls the "unconscious" is the human spirit. The "collective unconscious" is the powers of darkness that all unregenerated ppl and some church members are tapped into; it is full of dark shadows and archetypes (in Jungs words); they are called demons in scripture and most church people do not like to talk about them. We ignore them and hope they will go away. judyt Bill, The picture you drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road Less Traveled”?--- “If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
"Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuance his words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though, before I should want to conclude that this is indeed what he is doing or saying, I would want to know how he nuances this language with Scripture. Is that okay? Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:53 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, The picture you drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road Less Traveled”?--- “If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Bill, The picture you drew about God’s beauty brought tears to my eyes—so true! What do you think of M. Scott Peck’s words in “The Road Less Traveled”?--- “If you want to know the closest place to look for grace, it is within yourself. If you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you. What this suggests is that the interface between God and man is at least in part the interface between our unconscious and our conscious. To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time. God has been with us all along is now, and always will be. “ Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit. Izzy Think with me for a moment about instinct, things that we know but cannot explain. How does a baby know to suck upon her mother's breast? How do we know to close our eyes when something is hurled at us? How do we know when we've seenthe beauty of a sunset or a rose or a bably calf running in the springtime with its head down and its tail straight up behind it, that God is wonderful, that God is beautiful, that God is good, that God is love? How do we know that a thought is placed in our mind by God and did not originate from within us? These instinctive-type disclosers are relational, I believe, because we are created in the image of a relational God, a Triune God who is One by way of relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I think about defining "relationship" with the Lord, I want to leave room in my explanation for these theological instincts, awarenesses of God in the presence of which I can only marvel. I also want tobe humble enough to remember that I know more than I can say. Relationship is fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is participation in the Truth, the Creator of reality -- Existence himself.
