subject:"Re\: \[TruthTalk\] Fw\: Williams on Creationism"









Depending, certainly, upon who stated it.
iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:43
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism







Less is more. 







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
07:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











When was the last time on TT you posted more than two sentences?





When was at least one of the sentences about those combat boots?





Posts of web pages excepted.

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







Oh ya? (see how content-filled that is?)







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
07:06





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









But you are inclined to making baseless assertions.

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 



Oh but I do, Kevin. However, I'm not inclined toward
'darkening the corner where you are'.







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
06:29





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









If you do not KNOW what it is how can you make a value judgement on it?

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 



Whatever 'YOUR JOB' is Kevin, y'all ain't bin doin' it all
that well AT TT!







- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
18:39





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been achieved
includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system . I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is needful
or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So?





There isn't a single view of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


If "it" refers to creationism , you didn't read my last paragraph. And I do believe in [my brand of ] creationism --- still don't want it taught in the secular school system.

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








You didnt answer the question. 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:41 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK into the general population. Evenan old earth belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro - no. 



I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a radical andatheistic biology prof. These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in class.They  semed to work. 



Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a concept could be implemented. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?  izzy   -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then,  I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools  either.- Original Message -  From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T
o: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation ism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,   Williams   said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller   - Original Message -   From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE   YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,   David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe
,   Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you   and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri ple   yikes)   - Original Message -   From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   Lance wrote:   If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be   separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have   submitted   unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote:   He is a brother in Chr
ist who believes   differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.   g t;  He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker   was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our   Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement,   assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,   then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other   believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will   continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the   acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was   very   damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the  
; Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the   acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but   not   from theologian

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









And you accused Kevin of making
smart-assed replies???











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:51
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Who wouldn't be convinced when one employes
terms/expressions such as 'testable by empirical means', 'model of
creation..less than 10,000 years old' , 'a prediction that is testable
scientifically?' and 'empirical clocks to test this prediction?' Now, why
don't you take this on the road?







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
08:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that
are testable by empirical means. For example, if a model of creation says
that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction that is
testable scientifically? Don't we have empirical clocks to test this
prediction?











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 4:44 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that
which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.











- Original Message - 







From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
17:01





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.











I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for
what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses
to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for
the land and water to do what he said.He also may have been
involved in other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it
differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next
day.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Thursday, March
23, 2006 4:36 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be
scientific as we understand that term , today.
Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His
creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up
!!!?? And rest up  for what? Com'on David,
this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an unknown e.t. ? The version that says it took
God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 











Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Don't you get it JT?





TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!





The opinions of Men are the key.

Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







So?





There isn't a single fiew of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Ignorance of facts demonstrated here to
the max. Public education WAS religious (Christian) education. I will do the
homework and post the truth if I have time before we go down with the TT ship!
iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:13
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian
education. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science'
reflects neither.







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
08:33





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she
should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and
its place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange
how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation
science being dealt with in the same way?











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 4:30 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric
if you like. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:23





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Hats off to you , Linda, on this one. It starts with our families. We can yell and scream at each other, here on TT, but some of our decisions can damn our children. Your patience and trust in the Lord is above the call. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Jd, I remember when my oldest son told me (when he was in college) that he was no longer a Believer. I calmly told him that he was going through a good and necessary stage of life in which he was rejecting what he had been taught as a child so that he could re-evaluate everything for himself. I assured him that when he had completed this task that he would find that what he had been taught about his faith as a child would not only prove to be true, but would be his very own, internalized belief. He is now a Christian, although he does not usually attend church although his wife usually does. He is more of a solitary person, like his father. I would appreciate prayers for his growth in the area of fellowship. He is as fine a young man as ever I have met. I have learned much from him over the years, and thoroughly enjoy every moment I get to spend with him. izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:01 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 



Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community andan  innate longing to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 



What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! I and my wife are one becauseGodthought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a debate  



Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. 



The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 





jd





jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 



Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for t

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Excellent !

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








No, I wish I could be with them every day to do that, but I only get to teach them when I visit them out of state. The girls have been reading since they were four years old and are SO smart!!! (Im not biased, either! J ) Since age 6 you could ask Gretchen to read any book, chapter and verse in the Bible, and she would pick it up, find the place, and happily read it to you without a problem. They are taught mostly by their mom and some by their dad. Their mother got a masters degree in education with the intent of becoming a homeschooling Mom. My (younger or two grown-up kids) son has his masters in aeronautical engineering with a minor in German, and now flies for Fed-Ex and teaches pilot training one week/mo
nth in the Reserves. They can teach anything a school aged child might need to learn I think. izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:04 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Are you the teacher?



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 



jd 



-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove

evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that

this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned

Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why

would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing



Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd







From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many

and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no

measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?

There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon

by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 

there isn't a single view of crea

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


My answer is Lance's. In view of that , I will interject this comment -- your alternative is not the only consideration. I do not want the secular system giving review to matters of faith. Nothing good would be accomplished -- and high school kids, by and large, do not "believe in evolution" anyway. 


jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools. That's all that's left.  Pathetic IMO. izzy   -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   Still no.- Original Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?   izzy -Original Message-   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir   Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it   then,   I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools   either.   - Original Message -   From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,   Williams   said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, 
no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller   - Original Message -   From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE   YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,   David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,   Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to   you   and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple   yikes)   - Original Message -   F
rom: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   Lance wrote:   If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to   be   separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have   submitted   unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote:   He is a brother in Christ who believes   differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.  
   He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The   moniker   was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our   Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement,   assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in   Christ,   then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other   believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will   continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the   acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was   very   damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the   Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the   acknowledgement of God 
are incompatible is expected from scientists but   not   from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor   Rowland   Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller --   "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may   know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)   http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a   friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --  
t; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may   know   how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)   http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to   [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will 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 subsc

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you
would want it taught in schools.  You said NO.  Pathetic, eh? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the 
words? Probably got it comin'.

Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e. 
creationism)

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools.  That's all that's left.
 Pathetic IMO.  izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Still no.

 - Original Message - 
 From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? 
 JD?
 izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
 then,
 I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
 either.

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
 Williams
 said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

 So how have I mischaracterized him?

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
 YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
 David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you 
 believe,
 Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to
 you
 and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
 yikes)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to
 be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
 submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The
 moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in
 Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
 very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
 Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

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

 --
 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

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Are you aware that it was a Christian who
discovered the fallacy of that belief? 

Galileo Galilei, though famous for his scientific achievements in
astronomy, mathematics, and physics and infamous for his controversy with the
church was, in fact, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science
but only a healthy marriage: God is known by nature in his works, and by
doctrine in his revealed word.

iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:51
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Are you aware (seriously) that for a lengthy period people
believed God's Word AND believe in a geocentric universe?







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
16:36





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Fortunately we comprehend the truth since
we believe Gods Word. 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:30
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric
if you like. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:23





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Exactly right that Horace Mann introduced
humanism in place of Christianity in the public education system. Until him
the Bible was the basic textbook. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
 Miller
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:56
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







The history of public education is a little more complicated than
this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available
to those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in
because the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace
Mann, etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a
melting pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public
education for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and
focusing upon the knowledge that was more common among the different religious
sects.











What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came
from Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came
about through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists,
thePuritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never
materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through
the efforts of menlike Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism
to the Unitarian church.











David Miller













- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 9:12 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian
education. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]




No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science'
reflects neither.







- Original Message - 





From: David Miller 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 24, 2006
08:33





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should
teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its
place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how
science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation
science being dealt with in the same way?











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: Lance Muir






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Friday, March 24,
2006 4:30 AM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric
if you like. 







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 23, 2006
23:23





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to
others. 











jd 











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Mann instituted public education as an alternative to the existing private and religious system of the day. That is what I am talking about. What the Puritans did in the 1600's is NOT what I am talking about. I am telling you that public education started in Mass. as a reaction to "religious" and private systems of the day. That is how I remember my history on this.

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Exactly right that Horace Mann introduced humanism in place of Christianity in the public education system. Until him the Bible was the basic textbook. izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David MillerSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:56 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


The history of public education is a little more complicated than this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available to those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in because the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace Mann, etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a melting pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public education for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and focusing upon the knowledge that was more common among the different religious sects.



What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came from Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came about through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists, thePuritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through the efforts of menlike Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism to the Unitarian church.



David Miller




- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian education. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases 'creation science' reflects neither.


- Original Message - 

From: David Miller 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way?



David Miller


- Original Message - 

From: Lance Muir 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric if you like. 


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost.&q

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-24 Thread Lance Muir

It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic hypothetical, Iz.

.
- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

That wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, you
would want it taught in schools.  You said NO.  Pathetic, eh? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David you are like so right, man! familiaritycontempt...were those the
words? Probably got it comin'.

Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in schools (i.e.
creationism)

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 16:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

So you prefer that untruth be taught in schools.  That's all that's left.
Pathetic IMO.  izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Still no.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:04
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance?
JD?
izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it
then,
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
Williams
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. 
DOUBLE

YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you
believe,
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to
you
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to
be
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The
moniker
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in
Christ,
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
very
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists 
but

not
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
Rowland
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may

know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




You understood what was written, Judy. People think 
you pretty much don't 'get' anything that's written on TT. I believe you do 
'get' the odd bit.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 22, 2006 15:43
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Well what are you about Lance Muir
  Are you doing what God has called someone else to 
  do?
  Are you criticizing what you think someone else is 
  doing that God didn't tell them to do?
  Are you hearing God as to what he wants you to 
  do?
  How do you know you are hearing God since noone can 
  know truth according to you?
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:06:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Operative _expression_ 'what they believe God has 
called them to do'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Let me get this straight JD.
  By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
  believe Genesis as it is
  written - Right??
  
  PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the 
  Pat Robertsons of this
  world? You may have to eat those words one day 
  because both are busy
  about what they believe God has called them to do 
  and who are you to
  denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
  theological expert...
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
suppose, but I must say something here -- 
the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
(radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the 
first step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal 
with the situation outside the school setting. The 
church has done an excellent job in this regard with the High School 
population -- but it has forsaken the University campus' 
without a fight. Truth will win out if compared to that 
which has no bearings. The failure, here, is with the 
church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age 
population. It -- religion - simply does not 
need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and 
minds of the college age student. 

The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as 
it does with the unwanted-infant population. If the 
church could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- 
abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we 
think that after birth,it is all up to the infant, 
well, the battle will rage. 

In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do 
not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue 
almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat 
Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic 
nature.

jd








-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
  Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
  loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense 
  that the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not 
  sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto 
  Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote: 
He is a brother in Christ who believes   
  differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes 
  him what you say   then, that makes you what I say. 
He is not a liberal loony for believing differently 
  from me. The moniker  was offered because of his statement 
  about how acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in 
  schools. He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN 
  reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I 
  expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
   believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then 
  he will  continue to support the working of iniquity that 
  seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from 
  the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our society, 
  to believers who want to acknowledge God the  Creator in their 
  study of origins. To think that science and the  
  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists 
  but not  from theologians, and certainly not from the Right 
  Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Or, as on TT, theologically unknowing while 
spiritually alive. This is much more the case.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 22, 2006 18:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  So true, so true KD
  
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:54:02 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
A man may be Theologically knowing while spiritually 
DEAD.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  
  Let me get this straight JD.
  By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
  believe Genesis as it is
  written - Right??
  
  PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the 
  Pat Robertsons of this
  world? You may have to eat those words one day 
  because both are busy
  about what they believe God has called them to do 
  and who are you to
  denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
  theological expert...
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
suppose, but I must say something here -- 
the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
(radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the 
first step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal 
with the situation outside the school setting. The 
church has done an excellent job in this regard with the High School 
population -- but it has forsaken the University campus' 
without a fight. Truth will win out if compared to that 
which has no bearings. The failure, here, is with the 
church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age 
population. It -- religion - simply does not 
need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and 
minds of the college age student. 

The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as 
it does with the unwanted-infant population. If the 
church could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- 
abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we 
think that after birth,it is all up to the infant, 
well, the battle will rage. 

In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do 
not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue 
almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat 
Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic 
nature.

jd








-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
  Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
  loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense 
  that the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not 
  sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto 
  Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote: 
He is a brother in Christ who believes   
  differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes 
  him what you say   then, that makes you what I say. 
He is not a liberal loony for believing differently 
  from me. The moniker  was offered because of his statement 
  about how acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in 
  schools. He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN 
  reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I 
  expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
   believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then 
  he will  continue to support the working of iniquity that 
  seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from 
  the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our society, 
  to believers who want to acknowledge God the  Creator in their 
  study of origins. To think that science and the  
  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists 
  but not  from theologians, and certainly not from the Right 
  Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 
David Miller   --  
  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
  may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) 
  http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to 
  receive posts from this lis t, send an email to  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsub

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

HIGH Five[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:"Believe in God's word" is fundy code for "believe as I do." When we have been dispersed, take with you the knowledge that not one single Rad Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what "doctrine" they are talking about. You must obey the commandments !!! they yell to the others. What commandments --- love one another, treat others as you would be treated, do not judge with finality, strive to be as mature as God is? Do not lust. Be angry and sin not? Is that it? They make it sound as if they have commandments no else has -- and it turns out , they do
 not. Just a big deal over the very same things all of uspractice. Sigh  jd-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] myth (this writersubjugates us to her narrow notions, permits usnofaith in God per se)On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:08:08 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..jt:  ppl of faith believe God's Word 
		New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor




What is the point in pursuing dead letters when one 
can
feast on a "living Word"

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:04:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Or, as on TT, theologically unknowing while 
  spiritually alive. This is much more the case.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

So true, so true KD


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:54:02 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  A man may be Theologically knowing while spiritually 
  DEAD.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and 
the Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day 
because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to 
do and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 
14 theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here 
  -- the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between 
  science and religion. It is between religion and 
  fundamentalism (radical fundamentalism, if you 
  will.) Knowing that the first step will not be last step 
  for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation outside the 
  school setting. The church has done an excellent job 
  in this regard with the High School population -- but it 
  has forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth 
  will win out if compared to that which has no 
  bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and 
  its seeming inability to continue with the college age 
  population. It -- religion - simply does not 
  need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts 
  and minds of the college age student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just 
  as it does with the unwanted-infant population. If 
  the church could place 1.4 million newborns each year 
  -- abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as 
  long as we think that after birth,it is all up to the 
  infant, well, the battle will rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do 
  not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either 
  venue almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and 
  Pat Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic 
  nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   
If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 
'sectarian loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in 
the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be  
separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have 
submitted  unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 
  Lance wrote:   He is a brother in 
Christ who believes   differently than you on some 
matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say  
 then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a 
liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker 
 was offered because of his statement about how 
acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. 
He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN 
reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then 
I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
 believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, 
then he will  continue to support the working of iniquity 
that seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator 
from the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our 
society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the  
Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the 
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from 
scientists but not  from theologians, and certainly not from 
the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of 
Canterbury.   David Miller   
--  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every 
man." (Colossians 4:6)

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Spoken like a true studen of RJR.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ; 
  )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major 
school system  I am sure we can 
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to 
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE 
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.

  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does 
  that prove? judyt

  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
the whole church. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.

  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
  this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 

   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
  thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

  David Miller

  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
rates.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

AGAIN you show your Short Comprehension I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC. wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a consensusWhat do you know of RJR? Not as much as you think, I suppose. He is NOT a Fundamentalist Like Papa like son, bring out the stake Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spoken like a true studen of RJR.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ; )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system
I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!jd-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would rejectany mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could
that not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests Godis somehow in control as the Creator(?) If thiscould be presented into the secular system ofeducation without it being coopted by the fundies-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shamethat radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forcesthe Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunityto introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is
the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.David MillerYahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you finally 
come out of hiding after the Y2K fiasco? I do believe that were we to remove the 
hoods from some on TT we would see that which underlies the hatred that you 
spread throughout the mid-east and, elsewhere.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  AGAIN you show your Short Comprehension
  I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC.
  wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a consensus
  
  What do you know of RJR?
  Not as much as you think, I suppose.
  He is NOT a Fundamentalist
  Like Papa like son, bring out the stake
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

Spoken like a true studen of RJR.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ; 
  )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing


Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
major school system  I am 
sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary 
  process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious 
  on purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests 
  God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) 
  If this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the 
  fundies 
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom 
  forces 
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful 
  opportunity 
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies 
  like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing 
  this.
  
  David Miller
  


  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. P

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

I am talking about what we teach in school and Judy comes back with something about"the secret things" and then Kevin, bless his little heart, comes back with something about reading the Bible --- NEW FLASH !!! ObviouslyTT as a DISCUSSION GROUP died some time ago !!

Over here , guys !! I am the one talking about .. oh, never mind.

You guys are a hoot !! At least I don't have to worry about defending myself since none of us are talking about the same things -- and you guysbelieve unity is "speaking and thinking the same things??""LOL !!

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is in the Bible READ IT[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

what on earth are you talking about, Judy !!! Secret things ??? So you decided to just stay off subject? Whatever.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Some ppl are willing to let God be God JD
The secret things belong to the Lord and as Kevin says; let the ppl serving
Caesar fumble around and follow whatever way the wind is blowing.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:34:20 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Someone said
render to Cesear what is Cesear's [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry.

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting??

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this --
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

John wrote:
The world in which we live would reject
any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could
that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
fundamentalist take-over of the culture?
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
But to allow a mere statement that suggests God
is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this
could be presented into the secular system of
education without it being coopted by the fundies
-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame
that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity
to introduce the Creator to others.
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller





Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Oh, I guess he does KNOW, Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 23, 2006 08:29
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You 
  are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big 
  banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In 
  fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time 
  for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean 
  evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who 
  digresses.

  My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
  ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need 
  this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our 
  senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that 
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
  -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
  --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
  lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
  preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
  benevolent blessings to others. 

  jd 

  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? 
As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
"harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes 
the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless 
information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
major school system  I am 
sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.

  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt

  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary 
  process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious 
  on purpose.

  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests 
  God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) 
  If this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the 
  fundies

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread ttxpress




(he needsto be absolute 
onwhat he's 'high-fiving', Bro:)


On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:27:27 -0800 (PST) 
Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

||

jd/*g:


  
  
  "Believe in God's word" is * [typical techno legalistic..] code 
  for * " * [we're all damned 
  goin' t'hell fer not] believe[ing] as [they tell 
  usto]."
  
  They make it sound as if they have* 
  [conquered the intellect with 
  truth].. and it turns out , they *[sense neither God's heart nor 
  mind]..

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor






On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:29:33 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You 
  are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big 
  banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In 
  fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time 
  for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean 
  evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who 
  digresses.
  
  "Let there be" is hardly an evolvement. Who is it who 
  was laughing at me for believing it even took one whole day
  Wasn't that you JD?
  
  My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
  ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need 
  this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our 
  senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that 
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
  -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
  --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
  lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
  preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
  benevolent blessings to others. jd 
  
  Check the gospels again JD. Jesus always taught 
  before he ministered and this is the example left to us.
  If you are ministering as the oracles of God, rather 
  than your own opinion and he is blessing your words,
  then you should also have signs following just as He 
  did.
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? 
As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
"harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes 
the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless 
information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
major school system  I am 
sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd



From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary 
  process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious 
  on purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests 
  God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?)

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor





Know what Lance? Nothing earthshaking 
coming from that direction.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:33:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Oh, I guess he does KNOW, Judy.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 08:29
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? 
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a 
"big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient 
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there 
has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's 
wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not 
need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and 
our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving 
that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
-- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
--- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
  "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
  scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
  would you want to warp young minds with useless 
  information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
  systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
  Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
  major school system  I am 
  sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
  would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
  slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
  happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
  SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything 
and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful 
or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
  
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
  -- HUH ???
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole 
church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What 
does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
  upon by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary 
process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a 
fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 

ROTFLOL. I sure hope

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

John wrote:
 Believe in God's word is fundy
 code for believe as I do.

After all this time, you still don't understand.  If it is code for 
anything, it is:  line up with my understanding of God's Word here, or show 
me what the true understanding of God's Word is and help me to line up with 
it.

The liberals say, God's Word can interpreted in many different ways so that 
none of us can be sure what it means; therefore, nobody can be dogmatic 
about any particular viewpoint.

John wrote:
 When we have been dispersed, take with
 you the knowledge that not one single Rad
 Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what
 doctrine they are talking about.

I think Kevin is the only fundamentalist left on TT.  He certainly does not 
fit your characterization from my perspective.  He has patiently explained 
what doctrine he is talking about.

John wrote:
 You must obey the commandments  !!!
 they yell  to the others.   What commandments
 ---   love one another,  treat others as you would
 be treated,  do not judge with finality,   strive to
 be as mature as God is?   Do not lust.  Be angry
 and sin not?   Is that it?

 They make it sound as if they have commandments
 no else has  --  and it turns out , they do not.
 Just a big deal over the very same things all of us
 practice.
 Sigh

You should ask yourself why some of us hear a fundamentalist like Kevin and 
say, Amen!, while others hear him and say, Oh My!  If everyone were 
truly all practicing the same thing, we would not hear both of these 
reactions.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and 
speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do 
with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand 
your point.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. 
  That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or 
  an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 
  hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
  !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a 
  drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 
  
  Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree 
  on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system 
  ??? We are still waiting??
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  So?
  There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does that 
  prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the 
whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
  
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
  
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
  inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
  thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.
  
  David Miller
  



Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make 
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Limiting our 'case study' to yourself and Judy, please demonstrate 
where either one of you were brought, via Scripture, to a more genuine 
'lining up'. No David, you are fundamentalists!
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 14:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

John wrote:

Believe in God's word is fundy
code for believe as I do.

After all this time, you still don't understand.  If it is code for
anything, it is:  line up with my understanding of God's Word here, or 
show
me what the true understanding of God's Word is and help me to line up 
with

it.

The liberals say, God's Word can interpreted in many different ways so 
that

none of us can be sure what it means; therefore, nobody can be dogmatic
about any particular viewpoint.

John wrote:

When we have been dispersed, take with
you the knowledge that not one single Rad
Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what
doctrine they are talking about.

I think Kevin is the only fundamentalist left on TT.  He certainly does 
not

fit your characterization from my perspective.  He has patiently explained
what doctrine he is talking about.

John wrote:

You must obey the commandments  !!!
they yell  to the others.   What commandments
---   love one another,  treat others as you would
be treated,  do not judge with finality,   strive to
be as mature as God is?   Do not lust.  Be angry
and sin not?   Is that it?

They make it sound as if they have commandments
no else has  --  and it turns out , they do not.
Just a big deal over the very same things all of us
practice.
Sigh

You should ask yourself why some of us hear a fundamentalist like Kevin 
and

say, Amen!, while others hear him and say, Oh My!  If everyone were
truly all practicing the same thing, we would not hear both of these
reactions.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




"I don't understand your point." = "Are you mocking 
the concept I do understand?"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 14:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and 
  speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do 
  with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't 
  understand your point.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 
    PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. 
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 
or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 
144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including 
a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot 
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school 
system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Don't you get it JT?
  TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
  The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does 
that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
  the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 

 -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  
  
  Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make 
  PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Actually, there is some good stuff that comes from ICR too. As I said 
before, they serve a function in our society which I think is good.If I'm 
not too embarrassed to read Lance Muir, I will not be too embarrassed to read 
ICR approved material. :-)

David Miller


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:47 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">
  Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and 
  Verified
  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">
  
  But being that it is ICR research you may be too embarrassed to read it. 
  ; )
  
  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=homeaction="">David 
  Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  David 
Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, 
by Robert Gentry?Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I 
learn were I to do so, David?I'm glad you 
asked.There are several things you would learn:1. You would 
learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement 
rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather than cooling 
over a million years.2. You would see a clear example of how science 
operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, 
falsifying each one.3. You would learn about the bigotry in science 
against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of 
origins.4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge 
relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific 
evidence.The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science 
into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone 
interested in the creation versus evolution controversy.David 
Miller--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 
4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from 
this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be 
unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an 
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be 
  subscribed.
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Thanks for that compliment (?), David. BTW, I'm not 
embarrassed to read them either.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 14:39
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Actually, there is some good stuff that comes from ICR too. As I 
  said before, they serve a function in our society which I think is 
  good.If I'm not too embarrassed to read Lance Muir, I will not be too 
  embarrassed to read ICR approved material. :-)
  
  David Miller
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:47 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and 
Verified
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">

But being that it is ICR research you may be too embarrassed to read 
it. ; )

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=homeaction="">David 
Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David 
  Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny 
  Mystery, by Robert Gentry?Lance wrote: No, I've not but, 
  what would I learn were I to do so, David?I'm glad you 
  asked.There are several things you would learn:1. You 
  would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the 
  basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather 
  than cooling over a million years.2. You would see a clear 
  example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing 
  those hypotheses, falsifying each one.3. You would learn about the 
  bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a 
  creationist model of origins.4. You would learn a little about how 
  a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of 
  examining scientific evidence.The book is an easy read, and it 
  breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth 
  the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution 
  controversy.David Miller--"Let your speech be 
  always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to 
  answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you 
  do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a 
  friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
__Do You 
Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

To believe fundamental Christianity means to accept fundamental tenets of 
Christianity.  To believe fundamentalism means to embrace a sect of 
Christianity which hammers on the fundamentals.  What if that ism sect 
said that only the KJV was inspired, or that believers need to sell all, 
forsake possessions, and live in communes like the early believers did, or 
that anyone who did not speak in tongues and heal the sick were not living 
in the same faith as the early believers?  I could go on and on.  The 
problem with believing in any ism is that if error creeps into the ism 
sect at all, it infects the whole group.  So I prefer the concept of 
believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in fundamentalism.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Then maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us.
I am sure Lance can not/will not

I am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of that 
particular ISM?

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance wrote:
 Fundamental Christianity is [fine]...
 FundamentalISM ought not be
 believed by anyone.

FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:It's too late in the game to say that which needs be said here re:your 
self-contradictory approach. It may well be another David Miller that I've 
been reading on TT for the last year or two.

Pass.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 14:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

To believe fundamental Christianity means to accept fundamental tenets of
Christianity.  To believe fundamentalism means to embrace a sect of
Christianity which hammers on the fundamentals.  What if that ism sect
said that only the KJV was inspired, or that believers need to sell all,
forsake possessions, and live in communes like the early believers did, or
that anyone who did not speak in tongues and heal the sick were not living
in the same faith as the early believers?  I could go on and on.  The
problem with believing in any ism is that if error creeps into the ism
sect at all, it infects the whole group.  So I prefer the concept of
believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in fundamentalism.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Then maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us.
I am sure Lance can not/will not

I am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of 
that

particular ISM?

David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance wrote:

Fundamental Christianity is [fine]...
FundamentalISM ought not be
believed by anyone.

FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Good.  Please write me with a review when you have done so.  I would be 
interested in how a theistic evolutionist would consider this information.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

I will give it a read, David.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 13:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David Miller wrote:
 Have you read Creation's Tiny
 Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

 Lance wrote:
 No, I've not but, what would I learn
 were I to do so, David?

 I'm glad you asked.

 There are several things you would learn:

 1.  You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that
 the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather
 than cooling over a million years.

 2.  You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing
 hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one.

 3.  You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing
 articles
 that suggest a creationist model of origins.

 4.  You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon
 expert
 testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence.

 The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple
 concepts.  It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation
 versus evolution controversy.

 David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams 
said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

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



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

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


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, 
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools 
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, 
Williams

said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

So how have I mischaracterized him?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple 
yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have 
submitted

unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ,
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was 
very

damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
not
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor 
Rowland

Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

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

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller




Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

You have risen to new heights, soon to be appointed 
ARCHbishop, John.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 23, 2006 16:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism

  David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have 
  ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 

  Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time 
  to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is 
  rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my 
  statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour 
  period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot 
  mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence 
  depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on 
  my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" 
  as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you 
  really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed 
  a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for 
  what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 

  jd

  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith 
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have 
to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't 
understand your point.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 
      PM
      Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism

  So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
  support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year 
  date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that 
  says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe 
  spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big 
  ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was 
  getting dry. 

  Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot 
  agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school 
  system ??? We are still waiting??

  jd

  -- 
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  So?
  There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does 
  that prove? judyt

  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
the whole church. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.

  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
  this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 

   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
  thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

  David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Well  gosh . thank you !!
I am out of the office for awhile -- but it trulyhas been fun !!

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

You have risen to new heights, soon to be appointed ARCHbishop, John.

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller




Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just think 
it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then,
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools,
 Williams
 said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

 So how have I mischaracterized him?

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
 YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
 David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
 Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you
 and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple
 yikes)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
 submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was
 very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor
 Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.

I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what 
he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses to 
divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the 
land and water to do what he said.He also may have been involved in 
other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it 
differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next 
day.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have 
  ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 
  
  Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time 
  to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is 
  rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my 
  statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour 
  period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot 
  mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence 
  depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on 
  my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" 
  as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you 
  really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed 
  a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for 
  what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith 
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have 
to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't 
understand your point.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 
      PM
      Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
  support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year 
  date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that 
  says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe 
  spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big 
  ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was 
  getting dry. 
  
  Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot 
  agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school 
  system ??? We are still waiting??
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  So?
  There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does 
  that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
  
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
  
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
  this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
  
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution (extermination), the "native Americans" did." PopeGary North (comments added) Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit...must be denied citizenship". Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? LOL Baptist Kingdom builders? LOL Baptist DominionISM? LOL Baptist Pope ROTFLRC Pope Calvin Reformed Presbyterian Bring in the kingdom Presbytery JD Replacement Theology "We
are Jews" Presbytery, Romans,Reformed C's, Mormons, Reformed, JD Lance!Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of Baptists http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm see # 4 The priesthood of the believer #5 right of soul liberty or religious liberty # 7 The Separation of Church and StateTry to get your baseless assertions straight: Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - Presbytery Gary Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbyteryKindy garten 101 - Who is who? Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htmPROTESTant RC Zwingly - Holding Bible
SWORD http://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpgFor all you kiddies TEST QUESTION who has the sword?Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/Dominion is the Sole Realm of Popes, Protestants Potentates!!!Again all the ammo you have is Psycho assertionISM! Name smearing and grossly misrepresenting peoples beliefs. These REFORMED Catholics are just like their Papa Baptists do not preach this baloney never have. Popes Protestants and Potentates have blood on their hands. Most times it was the
blood of Baptists You defame their pure blood, shed by murderous RC's Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you RJ Rushdooney http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm The Royal Race of the Redeemed? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you finally come out of hiding after the Y2K fiasco? I do believe that were we to remove the hoods from some on TT we would see
that which underlies the hatred that you spread throughout the mid-east and, elsewhere.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismAGAIN you show your Short Comprehension I am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC. wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a consensus
What do you know of RJR? Not as much as you think, I suppose. He is NOT a Fundamentalist Like Papa like son, bring out the stake Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spoken like a true studen of RJR.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology in school ; )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no
one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!jd-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the
Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would rejectany mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Couldthat not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on
purpose.John wrote:

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto CesearUnless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.My point? If the church had not surrendered
its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why
advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! AmazingMaybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judytOn Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would reject
any mention of God in the evolutionary process,IMO. But creationism in the schools? Couldthat not be considered the beginnings of a fanaticalfundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests Godis somehow in control as the Creator(?) If thiscould be presented into the secular system ofeducation without it being coopted by the fundies-- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shamethat radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forcesthe Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunityto introduce the Creator to
others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.David MillerYahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/r/aruwashd.htm  Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?  Refrain  Are you washed in the blood,In the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb?Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?  Are you walking daily by the Saviors side?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?Do you rest each moment in the Crucified?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?  Refrain  When the Bridegroom cometh will your robes be white?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?Will your soul be ready for the mansions bright,And be washed in the blood of the Lamb?  Refrain  Lay aside the garments that are stained with sin,And be washed in the blood of the Lamb;Theres a fountain flowing for the soul unclean,O be washed in the blood of the Lamb!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  (he needsto be absolute onwhat he's 'high-fiving', Bro:)  On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:27:27 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:||jd/*g:  "Believe in God's word" is * [typical techno legalistic..] code for * " * [we're all damned goin' t'hell fer not] believe[ing] as [they tell usto]."They make it sound as if they have* [conquered the intellect with truth].. and it turns out , they *[sense neither God's heart nor mind]..__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

So I prefer the concept of believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in fundamentalism.And that is whileI prefer to believe the Special Revelation of God himself, I do not have a POPE or Potentate or Presbytery.   I simply believe the revelation in the Book. JN 17:17 "Thy word IS Truth"  That is my presupposition I Deduce all my beliefs from there.Holy Spirit testifies of Christ  John 15:26-27 [26]"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about meThe Word testifies of Christ  JN 5:39, 46 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they
 which testify of Me." "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me""To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."Isaiah 8:20.  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  To believe fundamental Christianity means to accept fundamental tenets of Christianity. To believe fundamentalism means to embrace a sect of Christianity which hammers on the fundamentals. What if that "ism" sect said that only the KJV was inspired, or that believers need to sell all, forsake possessions, and live in communes like the early believers did, or that
 anyone who did not speak in tongues and heal the sick were not living in the same faith as the early believers? I could go on and on. The problem with believing in any "ism" is that if error creeps into the "ism" sect at all, it infects the whole group. So I prefer the concept of believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in fundamentalism.David Miller- Original Message - From: Kevin DeeganTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:31 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismThen maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us.I am sure Lance can not/will notI am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of that particular ISM?David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Lance wrote: Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... FundamentalISM ought not be believed by anyone.FWIW: I can appreciate this
 distinction Lance makes.David Miller--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Weee, yeaahh. And your point?

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 

Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear

Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller





Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.


Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD?
izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, 
I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools 
either.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 The CNN report:  Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, 
 Williams
 said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no.

 So how have I mischaracterized him?

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE
 YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped,
 David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe,
 Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you
 and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple 
 yikes)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be
 separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have 
 submitted
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
 Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
 assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ,
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
 believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was 
 very
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
 Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
 not
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor 
 Rowland
 Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

 David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









My goodness, jd.  What DO you believe
about Genesis??? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
3:36 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be
scientific as we understand that term , today.
Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His
creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up
!!!?? And rest up  for what? Com'on David,
this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an unknown e.t. ? The version that says it took
God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 











Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Don't you get it JT?





TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!





The opinions of Men are the key.

Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







So?





There isn't a single fiew of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd























-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:





 The world in which we live would reject 





 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 





 IMO. But creationism in the schools?
Could 





 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 





 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 





ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.











John wrote:





 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 





 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 





 could be presented into the secular system of 





 education without it being coopted by the fundies 





 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can.
What a shame 





 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 





 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 





 to introduce the Creator to others. 





In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of
Canterbury who are doing this.











David Miller





























Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US
(and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Why is this so hauntingly reminiscent of
communication between Screwtape and Wormwood? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
3:40 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







You have risen to new heights, soon to be appointed
ARCHbishop, John.







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: March 23, 2006
16:36





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you
have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 











Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of
time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually
speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that day is not a 24
hour period. To say that it is metaphorical
doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in
the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an
admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be
scientific as we understand that term , today.
Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His
creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up
!!!?? And rest up  for what? Com'on David,
this is impossible. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to
do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.











David Miller







- Original Message - 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 





Sent: Wednesday, March
22, 2006 5:29 PM





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Fw: Williams on Creationism











So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an unknown e.t. ? The version that says it took
God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 











Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Don't you get it JT?





TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!





The opinions of Men are the key.

Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







So?





There isn't a single fiew of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd























-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:





 The world in which we live would reject 





 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 





 IMO. But creationism in the schools?
Could 





 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 





 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 





ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.











John wrote:





 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 





 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 





 could be presented into the secular system of 





 education without it being coopted by the fundies 





 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can.
What a shame 





 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 





 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 





 to introduce the Creator to others. 





In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of
Canterbury who are doing this.











David Miller





























Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US
(and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Im so thankful that my 4
grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and
jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If
not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have
any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
lefties took over?) izzy











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
5:39 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE
DOING OUR JOB 











Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear











Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







What in the hell do you think I have been talking about?
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a
big banger nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has
not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That
doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it
is I who digresses.











My point? If the church had not surrendered its college
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need
this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our
senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE
DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS
A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I
am not just talking about preaching to the lost.
Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most
ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others.












jd 











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Why advocate teaching what you don't
know JD? As has already been noted Only when we prove





evolution do we need to concern
ourselves with harmonizing evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that





this level of proof has not been
achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned





Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why





would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 









I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing











Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major
school system  I am sure we can
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe.
but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE
TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd























From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



I surmised as much JD; my point being
that religious ppl have many





and varied points of view about anything
and everything and this is no





measure by which to gauge what is
needful or true.











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 





WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM --
HUH ???












From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



So?





There isn't a single view of the whole
church that is agreed upon





by the whole church either. What
does that prove? judyt











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this -- 





there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church. 











jd























-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:





 The world in which we live would reject 





 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 





 IMO. But creationism in the schools?
Could 





 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 





 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 





ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.











John wrote:





 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 





 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 





 could be presented into the secular system of 





 education without it being coopted by the fundies 





 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can.
What a shame 





 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 





 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 





 to introduce the Creator to others. 





In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of
Canterbury who are doing

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Christian roots of our public education systemNo but I do know about the Lefty Fruits of our public education, it is not about education. it is all about Indoctrination.  Government school Education is one of the promises ofthe Communist Manifesto 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school  property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair
 share". 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. We call it Federal  State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Police confiscation and Court ordered political fines.5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. 7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the
 improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations. 8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program
 and of course Executive order 11000. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. 10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. People are being taxed to support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education".ShieldsFamily
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the
 lefties took over?) izzyFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto CesearUnless of course you are swayed by the

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Linda, I believe that de-evolution is a much stronger force than evolution. I believe that natural selection only works when a mutation creates not only the change , itself, but a population with the same mutation and a reproductive proclivity that prevents the unique from being absorbed BACK into the general population. Evenan old earth belief,IMO,does not present enough time for evolution to have occurred at the levels claimed by its believers. And theistic evolution is only a form of creationism -- God manipulating growth and change via a process. Micro - yes. Macro - no.

I believe that the "eternity of God" is philosophically preferable to the eternity of matter (in whatever form ) and motion (of elementary particles). While at Cal Davis, my two sons had to deal with a radical andatheistic biology prof. These were some of the points I gave them. They used them in class.They semed to work.

Do I want creationism forced into the curriculum of our schools. NO. Who would teach it? What brand of creationism would be taught? And how do you teach it without a knowledge of and the use of the Bible? I mean -- isn't that the point of creationism? The BIBLE says this BUT science says something else? IMO, there simply is no way such a concept could be implemented.

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you thought it was true would you want it taught in schools, Lance? JD? izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:32 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creation
ism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: "I don't think it should, actually. No, no." So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be tri
ple yikes) - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say.
t; He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and
certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Le

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 

Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need for community andan  innate longing to live beyond what we see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 

What do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is my creator. I am in His image. And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round me. It tells me that I was created for others -- my wife, my children and the world in which I live. It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work is a curse because I must be responsible !! I and my wife are one becauseGodthought this to be the case from the beginning. and REST has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of this Genesis account.Whilesome of you only see a debate  

Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I digress with some free advice. 

The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 


jd


jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








My goodness, jd. What DO you believe about Genesis??? iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:36 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. 



Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point.



David Miller


- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 



Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting??



jd



-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Don't you get it JT?

TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!

The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


So?

There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon

by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 

there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 



jd







-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PRO

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Are you the teacher?

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 



Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear



Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.



My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. 



jd 



-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove

evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that

this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned

Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why

would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 



I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing



Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system  I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd







From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many

and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no

measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?

There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon

by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- 

there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. 



jd







-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

John wrote:

 The world in which we live would reject 

 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 

 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 

ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose.



John wrote:

 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 

 could be presented into the secular system of 

 education without it being coopted by the fundies 

 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 

 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

 to introduce the Creator to others. 

In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.



David Miller











Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low ra

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









Anyone who has a problem with it. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:21
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism





Whom do you ask the guys who think DM  Judy are Fundies?

ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are
you? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

DM says In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing
the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is
the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
this.

Some around here are concerned that there are FUNDIES lurking
around
every keyboard on TT.
Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush them
out into the open.
One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism!

--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

 John wrote:
  The world in which we live would reject 
  any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
  IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could 
  that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
 
 ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.
 
 John wrote:
  But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
  is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
  could be presented into the secular system of 
  education without it being coopted by the fundies 
  -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
  that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
  the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
  to introduce the Creator to others. 
 
 In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the
 acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the
 liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
 this.
 
 David Miller
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know
how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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



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

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









Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

That would be JD LanceThey use the term as a pejorative I think they are afraid of FundamentalistsShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Anyone who has a problem with it. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:21 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismWhom do you ask the guys who think DM Judy are Fundies?ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are you? iz-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismDM says In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causingthe acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It isthe liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doingthis.Some around here are concerned that there are "FUNDIES" lurking aroundevery keyboard on TT.Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush themout into the open.One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism!--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose. John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests God is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this could be presented into the secular system of education without it being coopted by the fundies -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may knowhow you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have afriend 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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of
spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his 
embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord 
ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning 
non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)



- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that
creationism should not be considered in schools?  I hate it when 
theologians

are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school.

David Miller


- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness
that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite
compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely 
that

unfolds in creative time.

Yup.

D


From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



- Original Message - 
From: Hughes Jonathan

To: Lance Muir
Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45
Subject: Williams on Creationism


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.williams.ap/index.html

Jonathan Hughes
Supervisor of Application Support
Kingsway Financial
905-629-7888 x. 2471



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

in connection with the above.

Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s'y rattachant contiennent de 
l'information

confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé,
s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel,
effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute
diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que 
le

destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre
coopération relativement au message susmentionné.


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006

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


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





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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 
'sectarian loonie' , David. He is a brother in Christ who believes differently 
than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes 
you what I say.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 21, 2006 15:21
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the schools? 
  Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What 
  a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing 
  the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It 
  is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing 
  this.
  
  David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




There is room for us to have different perspectives about how God created, 
but none of us should disagree with the notion that God is the Creator. To 
suggest that schools not teach even the possibility that God is the Creator is 
so ludicrous that I can't believe we are even talking about this or that you 
would defend this Bishop. Deception is the only word for it.

David Miller

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:27 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
  upon by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? 
Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop 
of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Iz:Fundamental Christianity is that which John believes. FundamentalISM 
ought not be believed by anyone.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 21, 2006 21:48
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are you? 
iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

DM says In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing
the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is
the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
this.

Some around here are concerned that there are FUNDIES lurking around
every keyboard on TT.
Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush them
out into the open.
One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism!

--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
 IMO.   But  creationism in the schools?   Could
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture?

ROTFLOL.  I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere  statement that suggests God
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?)   If this
 could be presented into the secular system of
 education without it being coopted by the fundies
 --  go for it.   But I doubt that it can.  What a shame
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity
 to introduce the Creator to others.

In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the
acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is the
liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
this.

David Miller

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




One's time would be better spent reading some 
noteworthy novelists than noteworthy creationists. Lift up Jesus and, 
creationISM, will fall away as it should.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 22, 2006 08:00
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  There is room for us to have different perspectives about how God 
  created, but none of us should disagree with the notion that God is the 
  Creator. To suggest that schools not teach even the possibility that God 
  is the Creator is so ludicrous that I can't believe we are even talking about 
  this or that you would defend this Bishop. Deception is the only word 
  for it.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:27 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
  
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
  What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
  inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop 
  of Canterbury who are doing this.
  
  David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Rowan Williams should be embarassed for being a pretenderLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 21, 2006 13:12Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that creationism should not be considered in schools? I hate it when theologians are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. David Miller
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism "And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time." Yup. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism -
Original Message - From: Hughes Jonathan To: Lance Muir Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45 Subject: Williams on Creationism http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.williams.ap/index.html Jonathan Hughes Supervisor of Application Support Kingsway Financial 905-629-7888 x. 2471 This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s'y rattachant contiennent de
l'information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- "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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David Miller wrote:
 I hate it when theologians are embarrassed
 of giving glory to the Creator in school.

Lance wrote:
 You do KNOW, do you not David, that
 that's NOT the source of his embarrassment?
 Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning
 our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many,
 are embarrassed over believers turning
 non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)

There is more to this issue that this.  Is he embarrassed of certain brands 
of creationism?  Of course.  I am too.  I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and 
that whole ICR group over there.  At the same time, they serve a purpose in 
what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the 
atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator 
from our public schools.

You say it is a NON-ISSUE?  I consider such a statement ignorant in the 
extreme.  Deceptive to the core.  There is one thing that the ICR group has 
illustrated, and that is that this is an issue.

I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was 
elected to be President of Student Government at the University of Florida. 
I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF just 
because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful.  He 
confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology at 
Oxford.  He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination / 
interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the 
classroom.  If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would have 
tolerated his creationist convictions.  I wish I could convey to you the 
grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who would 
not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design theories 
should be considered in school.

I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are 
well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of 
evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis.  When 
the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed 
in the day of our Lord.  The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he 
depicted the way science really operates.  These theologians who object to 
Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little bit 
more.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:

I'll take a pass on the ad-homs in your post as they simply illustrate what 
I've said concerning you all along. You're an insular, rationalism-based, 
anthropolically centered, angry, fundamentalist-based, sectarian. Ooops! I 
didn't 'take a pass' did I?


I've but one name to give to you and this so-called grief stricken student. 
Alister McGrath. Both of you do your homework so that you might see just how 
wrong you are. (Bonus name: Thomas Weinandy).

Go to it guys!


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 08:39
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



David Miller wrote:

I hate it when theologians are embarrassed
of giving glory to the Creator in school.


Lance wrote:

You do KNOW, do you not David, that
that's NOT the source of his embarrassment?
Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning
our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many,
are embarrassed over believers turning
non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)


There is more to this issue that this.  Is he embarrassed of certain 
brands
of creationism?  Of course.  I am too.  I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris 
and
that whole ICR group over there.  At the same time, they serve a purpose 
in

what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the
atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator
from our public schools.

You say it is a NON-ISSUE?  I consider such a statement ignorant in the
extreme.  Deceptive to the core.  There is one thing that the ICR group 
has

illustrated, and that is that this is an issue.

I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was
elected to be President of Student Government at the University of 
Florida.
I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF 
just

because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful.  He
confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology 
at

Oxford.  He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination /
interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the
classroom.  If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would 
have

tolerated his creationist convictions.  I wish I could convey to you the
grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who 
would
not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design 
theories

should be considered in school.

I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are
well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of
evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis.  When
the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed
in the day of our Lord.  The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he
depicted the way science really operates.  These theologians who object to
Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little 
bit

more.

David Miller

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


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





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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Alister McGrath?  He was received at Oxford as an atheist, and later he 
converted to Christianity.  I guess your point is that John should become an 
atheist first and then he would get in?

You still don't get my point.  A Christian these days, according to many of 
these theologians, must adopt the dogma that the mention of a Creator or 
models that involve a Creator should not be taught in school.  All their 
rhetoric about the compatibility of faith and science doesn't mean much at 
all if they affirm this idea that the Creator should be ignored in the study 
of science.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:

I'll take a pass on the ad-homs in your post as they simply illustrate what
I've said concerning you all along. You're an insular, rationalism-based,
anthropolically centered, angry, fundamentalist-based, sectarian. Ooops! I
didn't 'take a pass' did I?

I've but one name to give to you and this so-called grief stricken student.
Alister McGrath. Both of you do your homework so that you might see just how
wrong you are. (Bonus name: Thomas Weinandy).
Go to it guys!


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 08:39
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


 David Miller wrote:
 I hate it when theologians are embarrassed
 of giving glory to the Creator in school.

 Lance wrote:
 You do KNOW, do you not David, that
 that's NOT the source of his embarrassment?
 Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning
 our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many,
 are embarrassed over believers turning
 non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)

 There is more to this issue that this.  Is he embarrassed of certain
 brands
 of creationism?  Of course.  I am too.  I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris
 and
 that whole ICR group over there.  At the same time, they serve a purpose
 in
 what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the
 atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator
 from our public schools.

 You say it is a NON-ISSUE?  I consider such a statement ignorant in the
 extreme.  Deceptive to the core.  There is one thing that the ICR group
 has
 illustrated, and that is that this is an issue.

 I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was
 elected to be President of Student Government at the University of
 Florida.
 I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF
 just
 because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful.  He
 confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology
 at
 Oxford.  He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination /
 interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the
 classroom.  If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would
 have
 tolerated his creationist convictions.  I wish I could convey to you the
 grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who
 would
 not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design
 theories
 should be considered in school.

 I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are
 well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of
 evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis.  When
 the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed
 in the day of our Lord.  The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he
 depicted the way science really operates.  These theologians who object to
 Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little
 bit
 more.

 David Miller

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

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



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

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


--
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


I guess we'll not be going out on a high note, David!

As there was no 'smiley' in para #1, am I to take you seriously? Please 
check out Dr. McGrath's credentials. (speaking with you outside of your 
sectarian framework David, is often like speaking to a child) I've read 
pretty much everything he's written on science/theology. I've listened to 
several (5-6) courses. Why you chose to step out on your 'silly' foot, I do 
not know.


And David, how is it that you KNOW this to be true of Dr. McGrath? Have you 
read him? Have you heard him? Are you agnostic as to Dr. McGrath's 
credentials and his teaching on both science  theology? How is it that one 
could not appreciate your scholarship on this?



- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 09:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



Alister McGrath?  He was received at Oxford as an atheist, and later he
converted to Christianity.  I guess your point is that John should become 
an

atheist first and then he would get in?

You still don't get my point.  A Christian these days, according to many 
of

these theologians, must adopt the dogma that the mention of a Creator or
models that involve a Creator should not be taught in school.  All their
rhetoric about the compatibility of faith and science doesn't mean much at
all if they affirm this idea that the Creator should be ignored in the 
study

of science.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


David:

I'll take a pass on the ad-homs in your post as they simply illustrate 
what

I've said concerning you all along. You're an insular, rationalism-based,
anthropolically centered, angry, fundamentalist-based, sectarian. Ooops! I
didn't 'take a pass' did I?

I've but one name to give to you and this so-called grief stricken 
student.
Alister McGrath. Both of you do your homework so that you might see just 
how

wrong you are. (Bonus name: Thomas Weinandy).
Go to it guys!


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 08:39
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism



David Miller wrote:

I hate it when theologians are embarrassed
of giving glory to the Creator in school.


Lance wrote:

You do KNOW, do you not David, that
that's NOT the source of his embarrassment?
Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning
our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many,
are embarrassed over believers turning
non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)


There is more to this issue that this.  Is he embarrassed of certain
brands
of creationism?  Of course.  I am too.  I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris
and
that whole ICR group over there.  At the same time, they serve a purpose
in
what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the
atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator
from our public schools.

You say it is a NON-ISSUE?  I consider such a statement ignorant in the
extreme.  Deceptive to the core.  There is one thing that the ICR group
has
illustrated, and that is that this is an issue.

I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was
elected to be President of Student Government at the University of
Florida.
I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF
just
because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful.  He
confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology
at
Oxford.  He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination /
interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the
classroom.  If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would
have
tolerated his creationist convictions.  I wish I could convey to you the
grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who
would
not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design
theories
should be considered in school.

I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are
well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of
evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis. 
When
the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly 
embarrassed

in the day of our Lord.  The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he
depicted the way science really operates.  These theologians who object 
to

Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little
bit
more.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:
 If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
 you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be 
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted 
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:
 He is a brother in Christ who believes
 differently than you on some matters.
 Now, if that makes him what you say
 then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker 
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our 
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement, 
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ, 
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will 
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the 
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was very 
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the 
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the 
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not 
from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland 
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE 
YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, 
David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, 
Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you 
and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then
you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.

I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be
separate.  I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted
unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Lance wrote:

He is a brother in Christ who believes
differently than you on some matters.
Now, if that makes him what you say
then, that makes you what I say.

He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me.  The moniker
was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools.  He made an irrational statement,
assuming that CNN reported him accurately.  If he is a brother in Christ,
then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other
believers correct him.  If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the
acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools.  What he said was very
damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the
Creator in their study of origins.  To think that science and the
acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but 
not

from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:
 Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... 
 FundamentalISM ought not be 
 believed by anyone.

FWIW:  I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:
 One's time would be better spent reading
 some noteworthy novelists than noteworthy
 creationists. Lift up Jesus and, creationISM,
 will fall away as it should.

I can't say that I agree with you here.  Have you read Creation's Tiny 
Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

One's time would be better spent reading
some noteworthy novelists than noteworthy
creationists. Lift up Jesus and, creationISM,
will fall away as it should.

I can't say that I agree with you here.  Have you read Creation's Tiny
Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

David Miller

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David Miller wrote:
 Have you read Creation's Tiny
 Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

Lance wrote:
 No, I've not but, what would I learn
 were I to do so, David?

I'm glad you asked.

There are several things you would learn:

1.  You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that 
the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather 
than cooling over a million years.

2.  You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing 
hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one.

3.  You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles 
that suggest a creationist model of origins.

4.  You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert 
testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence.

The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple 
concepts.  It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation 
versus evolution controversy.

David Miller

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I suppose, but I must say something here -- the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation outside the school setting. The church has done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age population. It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age student.

The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will rage.

In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming tha
t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this lis
t, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Only in your hair-splitting mentality. iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Iz:Fundamental Christianity is that which John believes. FundamentalISM 
ought not be believed by anyone.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 21, 2006 21:48
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are you? 
 iz

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
 Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 DM says In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing
 the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is
 the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
 this.

 Some around here are concerned that there are FUNDIES lurking around
 every keyboard on TT.
 Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush them
 out into the open.
 One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism!

 --- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 John wrote:
  The world in which we live would reject
  any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
  IMO.   But  creationism in the schools?   Could
  that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
  fundamentalist take-over of the culture?

 ROTFLOL.  I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.

 John wrote:
  But to allow a mere  statement that suggests God
  is somehow in control as the Creator(?)   If this
  could be presented into the secular system of
  education without it being coopted by the fundies
  --  go for it.   But I doubt that it can.  What a shame
  that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
  the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity
  to introduce the Creator to others.

 In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the
 acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is the
 liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
 this.

 David Miller

 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 http://mail.yahoo.com
 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
 know
 how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
 http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor




So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is 
agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that 
prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole 
  church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? 
Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop 
of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor




Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who believe 
Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat 
Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day because 
both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do and 
who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here -- the 
  conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
  religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical 
  fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not 
  be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation 
  outside the school setting. The church has done an excellent 
  job in this regard with the High School population -- but it has 
  forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win 
  out if compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, 
  here, is with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the 
  college age population. It -- religion - simply does 
  not need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and 
  minds of the college age student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
  does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
  could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would 
  be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after 
  birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
  rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
  want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost 
  undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this 
  world running anything of an evangelistic nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that the 
holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not sectarian 
within the group of those who have submitted  unto Jesus Christ as 
their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote:   He is a 
brother in Christ who believes   differently than you on some 
matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   
then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a liberal loony 
for believing differently from me. The moniker  was offered because 
of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  Creator did not 
belong in schools. He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t 
CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I 
expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other  
believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will 
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove 
the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he 
said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to 
acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think 
that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is 
expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and certainly 
not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of 
Canterbury.   David Miller   -- 
 "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you 
may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive 
posts from this lis t, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  
he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

The problem is when any belief held by a fundamental Christian is labeled
Fundamentalism. izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:28 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:
 Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... 
 FundamentalISM ought not be 
 believed by anyone.

FWIW:  I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

What would anyone learn from all the tomes you've suggested over the years,
Lance??? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:18 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

 Lance wrote:
 One's time would be better spent reading
 some noteworthy novelists than noteworthy
 creationists. Lift up Jesus and, creationISM,
 will fall away as it should.

 I can't say that I agree with you here.  Have you read Creation's Tiny
 Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

 David Miller

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism









But its so much easier to sit on
ones tuffet and criticize the work of others. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
1:25 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism







Let me get this straight JD.





By Rad Fundies you are talking about
people who believe Genesis as it is





written - Right??











PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's
and the Pat Robertsons of this





world? You may have to eat those words
one day because both are busy





about what they believe God has called
them to do and who are you to





denigrate another man's servant. O thou
Romans 14 theological expert...











On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I
suppose, but I must say something here -- the
conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and
religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical
fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not
be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation outside
the school setting. The church has done an excellent job in
this regard with the High School population -- but it has forsaken
the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win out if
compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, here, is
with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age
population. It -- religion - simply does not need to be
in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the
college age student. 











The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it
does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church could
place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would be
EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after
birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will rage.












In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not
want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost
undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this
world running anything of an evangelistic nature.











jd





















































-- Original message -- 
From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 Lance wrote: 
  If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then 
  you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. 
 
 I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be 
 separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted 
 unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 
 
 Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes 
  differently than you on some matters. 
  Now, if that makes him what you say 
  then, that makes you what I say. 
 
 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker 
 was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our 
 Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, 
 assuming tha t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, 
 then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
 believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will 
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the 
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very 
 damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the 
 Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the 
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but
not 
 from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism




Operative _expression_ 'what they believe God has 
called them to do'?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 22, 2006 14:24
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  Let me get this straight JD.
  By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
  believe Genesis as it is
  written - Right??
  
  PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat 
  Robertsons of this
  world? You may have to eat those words one day 
  because both are busy
  about what they believe God has called them to do and 
  who are you to
  denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
  theological expert...
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
suppose, but I must say something here -- the 
conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
(radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first 
step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the 
situation outside the school setting. The church has done 
an excellent job in this regard with the High School population 
-- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a 
fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no 
bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its 
seeming inability to continue with the college age population. 
It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate 
curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age 
student. 

The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion 
would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that 
after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
rage. 

In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost 
undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of 
this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.

jd








-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
  Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
  loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that 
  the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not sectarian 
  within the group of those who have submitted  unto Jesus Christ as 
  their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote:   He is 
  a brother in Christ who believes   differently than you on 
  some matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say  
   then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a 
  liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker  was 
  offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  
  Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, 
   assuming tha t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in 
  Christ,  then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made 
  soon as other  believers correct him. If he is not a brother in 
  Christ, then he will  continue to support the working of iniquity 
  that seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from 
  the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our society, to 
  believers who want to acknowledge God the  Creator in their study 
  of origins. To think that science and the  acknowledgement of God 
  are incompatible is expected from scientists but not  from 
  theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland 
   Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.   David 
  Miller   --  "Let your speech be always 
  with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought 
  to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org  
   If you do not want to receive posts from this lis t, send an 
  email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be 
  unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to 
  send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be 
  subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

About as much as your husband's patients have learned from his care, Iz.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 14:44
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

What would anyone learn from all the tomes you've suggested over the 
years,

Lance??? iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:18 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 10:50
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Lance wrote:

One's time would be better spent reading
some noteworthy novelists than noteworthy
creationists. Lift up Jesus and, creationISM,
will fall away as it should.

I can't say that I agree with you here.  Have you read Creation's Tiny
Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

David Miller

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

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

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Iz:You slipped! David agreed with this 'hair-splitting' as you call it. Do 
you wish to apologize to your mentor?
- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 14:21
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Only in your hair-splitting mentality. iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:03 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Iz:Fundamental Christianity is that which John believes. FundamentalISM
ought not be believed by anyone.

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 21, 2006 21:48
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are you?
iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

DM says In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing
the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is
the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
this.

Some around here are concerned that there are FUNDIES lurking around
every keyboard on TT.
Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush them
out into the open.
One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism!

--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
 IMO.   But  creationism in the schools?   Could
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture?

ROTFLOL.  I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere  statement that suggests God
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?)   If this
 could be presented into the secular system of
 education without it being coopted by the fundies
 --  go for it.   But I doubt that it can.  What a shame
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity
 to introduce the Creator to others.

In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the
acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is the
liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing
this.

David Miller

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know

how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

I will give it a read, David.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 22, 2006 13:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

David Miller wrote:

Have you read Creation's Tiny
Mystery, by Robert Gentry?

Lance wrote:

No, I've not but, what would I learn
were I to do so, David?

I'm glad you asked.

There are several things you would learn:

1.  You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that
the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather
than cooling over a million years.

2.  You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing
hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one.

3.  You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing 
articles

that suggest a creationist model of origins.

4.  You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon 
expert

testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence.

The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple
concepts.  It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation
versus evolution controversy.

David Miller

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this --
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GOES INTO THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM -- HUH ??!! Be sure to answer with "the right one, John -- duh !!" or will that be Linda's piece of intellectual contribuation for the day?

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this --
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

David Miller

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Paul opposed the intolerant legalists in the church and so will I while, at the same time, writing the words of Romans 14. He is one of my mentors -- I will do the same.

A Rad Fundy is not defined by the words she reads but by the froth of mouth as she "evangelizes" the lost.

If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it.

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming tha
t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this li
s t, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


How busy are you , for the Lord, my dear southern plantation owner ?? Gave away any unwanted furniture lately? I would be careful with such criticism when one's duff is permanently shaped to her favority chair !!

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








But its so much easier to sit on ones tuffet and criticize the work of others. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:25 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism


Let me get this straight JD.

By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who believe Genesis as it is

written - Right??



PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat Robertsons of this

world? You may have to eat those words one day because both are busy

about what they believe God has called them to do and who are you to

denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 theological expert...



On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I suppose, but I must say something here -- the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation outside the school setting. The church has done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age population. It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts an
d minds of the college age student. 



The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will rage. 



In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.



jd

















-- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote:   He is a brother in Christ who believes   differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker  was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irr
ational statement,  assuming tha t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other  believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will  continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.   David Miller   --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://
www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this lis t, send an email to  [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

One can find strains of FundamentalISM in the strangest places!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iz:Fundamental Christianity is that which John believes. FundamentalISM ought not be believed by anyone.- Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 21, 2006 21:48Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism If fundamental Christianity is a problem for you, of what spirit are you? iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism DM says
In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. Some around here are concerned that there are "FUNDIES" lurking around every keyboard on TT. Perhaps these previous comments are a incantation meant to flush them out into the open. One can never be to prepared to protect oneself from fundaMENTALism! --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope you were being
facetious on purpose. John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests God is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this could be presented into the secular system of education without it being coopted by the fundies -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools. It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller __ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Likewise, here. It will go onto the shelf next to my "Little Black Box" or something like that.

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will give it a read, David.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 22, 2006 13:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry? Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David? I'm glad you asked. There are several things you would learn: 1. You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement rocks of the earth were created r
apidly, in minutes, rather than cooling over a million years. 2. You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one. 3. You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of origins. 4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence. The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution controversy. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how yo
u ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor




Well what are you about Lance Muir
Are you doing what God has called someone else to 
do?
Are you criticizing what you think someone else is 
doing that God didn't tell them to do?
Are you hearing God as to what he wants you to 
do?
How do you know you are hearing God since noone can 
know truth according to you?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:06:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Operative _expression_ 'what they believe God has 
  called them to do'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the 
Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day 
because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do 
and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here -- 
  the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
  religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
  (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first 
  step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with 
  the situation outside the school setting. The church has 
  done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population 
  -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a 
  fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no 
  bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its 
  seeming inability to continue with the college age population. 
  It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate 
  curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age 
  student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
  does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
  could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion 
  would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that 
  after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
  rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
  want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue 
  almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat 
  Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that 
the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not 
sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto 
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes   
differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes 
him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.  
 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. 
The moniker  was offered because of his statement about how 
acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. He 
made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN reported him 
accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I expect to hear 
a retraction or clarification made soon as other  believers 
correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will  
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the 
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he 
said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to 
acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think 
that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is 
expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and 
certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, 
Archbishop of Canterbury.   David Miller  
 --  "Let your speech be always with grace, 
seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer 
every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   
If you do not want to receive posts from this lis t, send an email to 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If 
you have a friend  who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and  he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

A man may be Theologically Intelligent but Spiritually Ignorant and without personal morals. Then again maybe ignorant on both count RW on the Atonement"'Christians have always found it hard to say exactly how this works. Some speak of Jesus taking the punishment for sin in our place, some speak of him offering himself as a sacrifice. Some speak of him winning a victory over Satan and setting all of us who are prisoners free. It seems that there is no one way of saying this correctly.' Unitarian DRUID! http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page120.html Archbishop - or Arch-heretic?Williams had been inducted into 'the Gorsedd of Bards', reported to be an historic order
of Druids with pagan roots. Williams apparently went through an hour-long ceremony at sunrise within a circle of standing stones like those at Stonehenge and the significance was variously reported, e.g.: 'The Gorsedd of Bards takes its name from the high seat, which was the mount on which the sacred kings were wedded to the female spirit of the land in ancient times.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1045967,00.html archbishop finds himself cast out by evangelicals Congress exposes Anglican leader's position as split over gays grows deeper BIRDS of a FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER!Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to John Paul II, 10/4/03: In 1966 Pope Paul VI gave Archbishop Michael Ramsey his own Episcopal ring, which has been treasured by his successors and which I wear today. I am glad to thank you for the personal gift of a pectoral cross, sent to me on the occasion of my enthronement earlier this year. As I took on my new ministry I appreciated deeply that sign of a shared task This is the seal of a VALID Bishop of ROME!http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734282506.html Rowan Williams, the next archbishop of Canterbury, is to meet members of the Church of England's oldest evangelical body next week in an attempt to convince them that he is not a heretic over his views on homosexuality and the literal truth of some biblical stories Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rowan Williams should be embarassed for being a pretenderLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 21, 2006 13:12Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that creationism should not be considered in schools? I hate it when theologians are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. David Miller - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism "And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time." Yup. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Hughes Jonathan To: Lance Muir Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45 Subject: Williams on
Creationism http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.williams.ap/index.html Jonathan Hughes Supervisor of Application Support Kingsway Financial 905-629-7888 x. 2471 This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s'y rattachant contiennent de l'information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son
expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- No

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

There is something funny about a man that thinks he has such a direct line with God that he is able to discern God's will for another man!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well what are you about Lance Muir Are you doing what God has called someone else to do? Are you criticizing what you think someone else is doing that God didn't tell them to do? Are you hearing God as to what he wants you to do? How do you know you are hearing God since noone can know truth according to you?On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:06:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Operative _expression_ 'what they believe God has called them to do'?From: Judy Taylor Let me get this straight JD. By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who believe Genesis as it is written - Right??PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat Robertsons of
this world? You may have to eat those words one day because both are busy about what they believe God has called them to do and who are you to denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 theological expert...On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I suppose, but I must say something here -- the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal
with the situation outside the school setting. The church has done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the college age population. It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age student. The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will
rage. In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have
submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming tha t CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who
want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. David Miller -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this lis t, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

There is no point in such posts. You can't get it right with Stone/Campbell. no point in believing you can get it right concerning anything else. Information sources need to be predictably accurate -- not just predictable. .

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A man may be Theologically Intelligent but Spiritually Ignorant and without personal morals.
Then again maybe ignorant on both count
RW on the Atonement"'Christians have always found it hard to say exactly how this works. Some speak of Jesus taking the punishment for sin in our place, some speak of him offering himself as a sacrifice. Some speak of him winning a victory over Satan and setting all of us who are prisoners free. It seems that there is no one way of saying this correctly.'

Unitarian DRUID!
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page120.html Archbishop - or Arch-heretic?Williams had been inducted into 'the Gorsedd of Bards', reported to be an historic order of Druids with pagan roots. Williams apparently went through an hour-long ceremony at sunrise within a circle of standing stones like those at Stonehenge and the significance was variously reported, e.g.: 'The Gorsedd of Bards takes its name from the high seat, which was the mount on which the sacred kings were wedded to the female spirit of the land in ancient times.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1045967,00.html
archbishop finds himself cast out by evangelicals Congress exposes Anglican leader's position as split over gays grows deeper

BIRDS of a FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER!

Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to John Paul II, 10/4/03: In 1966 Pope Paul VI gave Archbishop Michael Ramsey his own Episcopal ring, which has been treasured by his successors and which I wear today. I am glad to thank you for the personal gift of a pectoral cross, sent to me on the occasion of my enthronement earlier this year. As I took on my new ministry I appreciated deeply that sign of a shared task
This is the seal of a VALID Bishop of ROME!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734282506.html
Rowan Williams, the next archbishop of Canterbury, is to meet members of the Church of England's oldest evangelical body next week in an attempt to convince them that he is not a heretic over his views on homosexuality and the literal truth of some biblical stories
Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rowan Williams should be embarassed for being a pretenderLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 21, 2006 13:12Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that creationism should not be considered in schools? I hate it when theologians are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. David Miller - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism<
BR> "And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time." Yup. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Hughes Jonathan To: Lance Muir Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45 Subject: Williams on Creationism http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.wi
lliams.ap/index.html Jonathan Hughes Supervisor of Application Support Kingsway Financial 905-629-7888 x. 2471 This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s'y rattachant contiennent de l'information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisati
on de cette

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

All their rhetoric about the compatibility of faith and science doesn't mean much at all if they affirm this idea that the Creator should be ignored in the study of science.Only if the study of Science is REALLY about the pursuit of truth! Sadly that has not been it's track record.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alister McGrath? He was received at Oxford as an atheist, and later he converted to Christianity. I guess your point is that John should become an atheist first and then he would get in?You still don't get my point. A Christian these days, according to many of these theologians, must adopt the dogma that the mention of a Creator or models that involve a Creator should not be taught in school. All their rhetoric about the compatibility of faith
and science doesn't mean much at all if they affirm this idea that the Creator should be ignored in the study of science.David Miller- Original Message - From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:47 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on CreationismDavid:I'll take a pass on the ad-homs in your post as they simply illustrate whatI've said concerning you all along. You're an insular, rationalism-based,anthropolically centered, angry, fundamentalist-based, sectarian. Ooops! Ididn't 'take a pass' did I?I've but one name to give to you and this so-called grief stricken student.Alister McGrath. Both of you do your homework so that you might see just howwrong you are. (Bonus name: Thomas Weinandy).Go to it guys!- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
<TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 22, 2006 08:39Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David Miller wrote: I hate it when theologians are embarrassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. Lance wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM) There is more to this issue that this. Is he embarrassed of certain brands of creationism? Of course. I am too. I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and that whole ICR group over there. At the same time, they serve a purpose in what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the atheistic
and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator from our public schools. You say it is a NON-ISSUE? I consider such a statement ignorant in the extreme. Deceptive to the core. There is one thing that the ICR group has illustrated, and that is that this is an issue. I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was elected to be President of Student Government at the University of Florida.. I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF just because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful. He confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology at Oxford. He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination / interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the classroom. If this was a non-issue, these professors
of theology would have tolerated his creationist convictions. I wish I could convey to you the grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who would not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design theories should be considered in school. I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis. When the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed in the day of our Lord. The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he depicted the way science really operates. These theologians who object to Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little bit more. David Miller --
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace,

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

And what do his other "works" say about him, to you?How do you feel about his taking part in a DRUID worship service?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David.I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say.He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our
Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.David Miller--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

Then maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us.  I am sure Lance can not/will notI am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of that particular ISM?  David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Lance wrote: Fundamental Christianity is [fine]...  FundamentalISM ought not be  believed by anyone.FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes.David Miller--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">  Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified  http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction="">But being that it is ICR research you may be too embarrassed to read it. ; )http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=homeaction="">David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  David Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by
 Robert Gentry?Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David?I'm glad you asked.There are several things you would learn:1. You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather than cooling over a million years.2. You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one.3. You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of origins.4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence.The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution
 controversy.David Miller--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism