Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Hi David, Luther was singing in Church before Calvin and his Geneva experiment. In fact there was a big controversy over whether or not he brough bar room tunes into the church putting different tunes to them. I don't personally know any song introduced by Calvin but Ilove "A Mighty Fortress Is My God" judyt On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:11:36 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote: ... the Psalms are worship songs - and these were a reality long before Calvin. I assume by your comment here that you think Calvin did a GOOD THING by bringing them into a church which lacked such. Am I right in my assumption here? Did Calvin do something good in your eyes? 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: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Sorry ... I meant different words ... it's early On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 05:47:34 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi David, Luther was singing in Church before Calvin and his Geneva experiment. In fact there was a big controversy over whether or not he brough bar room tunes into the church putting different tunes to them. I don't personally know any song introduced by Calvin but Ilove "A Mighty Fortress Is My God" judyt On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:11:36 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy wrote: ... the Psalms are worship songs - and these were a reality long before Calvin. I assume by your comment here that you think Calvin did a GOOD THING by bringing them into a church which lacked such. Am I right in my assumption here? Did Calvin do something good in your eyes? 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: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Judy wrote: ... the Psalms are worship songs - and these were a reality long before Calvin. I assume by your comment here that you think Calvin did a GOOD THING by bringing them into a church which lacked such. Am I right in my assumption here? Did Calvin do something good in your eyes? 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] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Exactly! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 14:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment***
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Exactly! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 07:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-e
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or
what?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly!
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 27, 2006 07:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
Walking in as much light as one has been given so
far is not the same as what you have been promoting
Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness
are walking in light. It has to be one or the other
because there is no concord between Christ and
Belial.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Exactly!
From: Judy
Taylor
I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I
do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk
in darkness; while others embrace the light and
as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the
light of dawn it shines brighter till the full
day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has
and
ATST not be in error. Noone alive today
has the whole loaf.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'.
Therefore some of that which you believe say is error.
Correct?
This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily
complex.
From: Judy
Taylor
No Lance I don't because the condemnation
is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to
come.
I believe somewalk in complete and
total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land,
yours
or mine.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy,
see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody,
including you, has all of it. Do you disagree?
From: Judy Taylor
You speak as though there were no
"objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is
where
you live. Not so for me and
others. We may bethe minority but then just because your
opinion a majority or
ecumenical one; this
ishardly a recommendation - is
it??
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I disagree. DH has chosen The
Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the
"cartoon incident' re: the Muslims.
If John Lennon were to have been
my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an
personal insult.
From: Dean Moore
cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards
you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person
needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John
Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a
personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by
calling you names then I have personally attacked you and
would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH :
Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my
attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express
your self but don't let it get
personal.
From: Lance Muir
IFO took your, and Judy's,
evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an
insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus
eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we
would have no ongoing dialogue.
By the way, wasn't there some
kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with
the above subject heading?
No-there isn't
any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I
make the
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 07:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 07:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means truth; no yours or mine about it. Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross deception. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. From: Judy Taylor Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as havingbeen promised something more than that. That's not OK. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means truth; no yours or mine about it. Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross deception. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. From: Judy Taylor Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow have been making your own saints. How do you know who is accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone who represents God is that he not only is able to separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles of God which you claim noone is able to comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue which is one of many. I have not ever noted you holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so I am left wondering about the basis of your discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful" On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as havingbeen promised something more than that. That's not OK. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means truth; no yours or mine about it. Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross deception. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. From: Judy Taylor Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is false. 2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. 3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me. 4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same. 5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I just don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow have been making your own saints. How do you know who is accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone who represents God is that he not only is able to separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles of God which you claim noone is able to comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue which is one of many. I have not ever noted you holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so I am left wondering about the basis of your discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful" On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as havingbeen promised something more than that. That's not OK. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means truth; no yours or mine about it. Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross deception. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. From: Judy Taylor Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor Walking in as much light as one has been given so far is not the same as what you have been promoting Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the other because there is no concord between Christ and Belial. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Exactly! From: Judy Taylor I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is
false.
Says who and upon what basis? Heresy
according to the "Church Fathers"?
2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I
count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does
also.
Then you and DM are the "authorities" and
your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment?
3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit
is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's
gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take
it up with the Lord and, not me.
The Lord has never made such a
statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt
7:21,22
4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to
comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone
comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same.
Where does God say those who follow
him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He say they would
be told what to speak in that
same hour? Once more, this is your
requirement, not his.
5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I just
don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would?
I have no idea Lance, I only know that where ones
treasure is their heart is also and that "out of the
abundance that fills the heart, the mouth
speaks.
From: Judy Taylor
The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow
have been making your own saints. How do you know who is
accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually
separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor
Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you
also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone
who represents God is that he not only is able to
separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles
of God which you claim noone is able to
comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue
which
is one of many. I have not ever noted you
holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so
I
am left wondering about the basis of your
discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful"
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ
another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of
the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in
everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to
slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees
it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts
of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with
scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's
just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as havingbeen
promised something more than that. That's not OK.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or
the Opinions of Men
For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth
means truth; no yours or mine about it.
Personalizing everything as you do leads to
gross deception.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not
convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about,
is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is
understood we can move on.
From: Judy
Taylor
Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a
new Lance or what?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Exactly!
From: Judy Taylor
Walking in as much light as one has
been given so far is not the same as what you have been
promoting
Nor is it saying that ppl who have
chosen darkness are walking in light. It has to be one or the
other
because there is no concord between
Christ and Belial.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:10:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Exactly!
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is false. Says who and upon what basis? Heresy according to the "Church Fathers"? 2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. Then you and DM are the "authorities" and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment? 3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me. The Lord has never made such a statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt 7:21,22 4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same. Where does God say those who follow him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He say they would be told what to speak in that same hour? Once more, this is your requirement, not his. 5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I just don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would? I have no idea Lance, I only know that where ones treasure is their heart is also and that "out of the abundance that fills the heart, the mouth speaks. From: Judy Taylor The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow have been making your own saints. How do you know who is accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone who represents God is that he not only is able to separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles of God which you claim noone is able to comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue which is one of many. I have not ever noted you holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so I am left wondering about the basis of your discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful" On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you sees it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when 'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as havingbeen promised something more than that. That's not OK. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means truth; no yours or mine about it. Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross deception. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My 'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can move on. From: Judy Taylor Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new Lance or what? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:17:38 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up front, I
am communicating where I am at.
Your problem is that you can not accept what I write - so why cloak it in devious terms. Why not
come right out and tel it like it isLance?
God knows and after all He is the "important One" It
is
He who holds life and death in His hands. What is man
whose breath is in his nostrils?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite from 'Cool
Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'.
From: Judy Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is
false.
Says who and upon what basis? Heresy
according to the "Church Fathers"?
2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted',
I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does
also.
Then you and DM are the "authorities"
and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment?
3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's
Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the
believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering
therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me.
The Lord has never made such a
statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt
7:21,22
4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to
comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone
comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same.
Where does God say those who
follow him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He say
they would be told what to
speak in that same hour? Once
more, this is your requirement, not his.
5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I
just don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would?
I have no idea Lance, I only know that where ones
treasure is their heart is also and that "out of the
abundance that fills the heart, the mouth
speaks.
From: Judy
Taylor
The way I see it Lance, you and those you
follow have been making your own saints. How do you know who
is
accepted and who is rejected before Jesus
actually separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther
nor
Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which
you also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone
who represents God is that he not only is able
to separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles
of God which you claim noone is able to
comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue
which
is one of many. I have not ever noted you
holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so
I
am left wondering about the basis of your
discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful"
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ
another term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element
of the author even in scripture so there is an element of one's self
in everything one writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to
slandering many of the great saints of church history. Neither of you
sees it that way. OK. I attempt to discern, from
the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even when
'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful.
We all do that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees
itself as havingbeen promised something more than that. That's
not OK.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 27, 2006
08:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth
or the Opinions of Men
For me Lance, exactly means exactly and
truth means truth; no yours or mine about it.
Personalizing everything as you do leads to
gross deception.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may
not convey the s
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Lance wrote: Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. Judy wrote: Then you and DM are the authorities and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment? Judy, please show me in God's Word and God's judgment exactly what makes Calvin and Luther not accepted by the Lord? I hope your reason for rejecting them is not the same as the RCC's reason. David Miller p.s. By the way, for those on the list who appreciate singing worship songs together, Calvin is the one credited with introducing this tradition in the church in Geneva. Would this be good fruit or bad fruit? -- 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] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Judy, while it is helpful to look at differences, communication also requires looking at areas of agreement. Surely there is something in what Lance says that you can find agreement with. Isn't there? For example, Lance says that the Lord is present in your gatherings. True? Lance says God is present in the RCC. Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen Athenians,"in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), surely you can find some agreement about God's presence in the RCC. Lance says that no onecomprehends exhaustively. True? Lance says that Scripture is to be held in high regard. True? Now please don't think that I am saying that you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying to help you communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and affirm that, then when you tweak other areas, you might lead him to understanding your viewpoint a little better. I think you have some good things to say to Lance, but I also agree with Lance that what we have here is a failure to communicate. This happens when one side stubbornly cannot hear the other side. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up front, I am communicating where I am at. Your problem is that you can not accept what I write - so why cloak it in devious terms. Why not come right out and tel it like it isLance? God knows and after all He is the "important One" It is He who holds life and death in His hands. What is man whose breath is in his nostrils? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is false. Says who and upon what basis? Heresy according to the "Church Fathers"? 2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. Then you and DM are the "authorities" and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment? 3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me. The Lord has never made such a statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt 7:21,22 4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same. Where does God say those who follow him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He say they would be told what to speak in that same hour? Once more, this is your requirement, not his. 5. I hold scripture in the highest regard. I just don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who would? I have no idea Lance, I only know that where ones treasure is their heart is also and that "out of the abundance that fills the heart, the mouth speaks. From: Judy Taylor The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow have been making your own saints. How do you know who is accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you also defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone who represents God is that he not only is able to separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles of God which you claim noone is able to comprehendso I guess you and God part company on this issue which is one of many. I have not ever noted you holding scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so I am left wondering about the basis of your discernment and how you would know what is "truly truthful" On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:14:46 -0500 "Lance Muir&q
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Hi David: I'm not ready to pronounce either sainthood or damnation on any soulliving or dead since that authority has been given but not to me. BTW the Psalms are worship songs - and thesewere a reality long before Calvin. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Lance wrote: Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. Judy wrote: Then you and DM are the "authorities" and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment? Judy, please show me in "God's Word" and "God's judgment" exactly what makes Calvin and Luther not accepted by the Lord? I hope your reason for rejecting them is not the same as the RCC's reason. David Miller p.s. By the way, for those on the list who appreciate singing worship songs together, Calvin is the one credited with introducing this tradition in the church in Geneva. Would this be good fruit or bad fruit? --"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] Truth or the Opinions of Men
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:06:42 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, while it is helpful to look at
differences, communication also requires looking at areas of agreement.
Surely there is something in what Lance says that you can find agreement
with. Isn't there?
For example, Lance says that the Lord is
present in your gatherings. True?
I'm not even so sure about
that David; I rather think he stands at the door and knocks while we go on
with our programs
and dead religious
works.
Lance says God is present in the RCC.
Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen Athenians,"in him we live
and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), surely you can find some agreement
about God's presence in the RCC.
Acts 17:28 speaks of God's
Omnipresence - Paul is trying to persuade these lost Athenians to seek Him. I
don't see every person
who claims to be RCC as going
to hell per se while they still have time to repent and turn from idols to the
living God.
Lance says that no onecomprehends
exhaustively. True?
I don't burden myself with
this kind of a question David - who knows?
Lance says that Scripture is to be held in
high regard. True?
Jesus the Living Word says
that if we love Him and hold Him in high regard we will be doing what He
says.
Now please don't think that I am saying that
you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying to help you
communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and affirm that, then when
you tweak other areas, you might lead him to understanding your viewpoint a
little better.
I do appreciate your concern
David but I don't see the above happening any time soon - Lance speaks on an
intellectual level
and I am talking about the
spiritual reality of God's revelation. The two are like oil and
water.
I think you have some good things to
say to Lance, but I also agree with Lance that what we have here is a failure
to communicate. This happens when one side stubbornly cannot hear the
other side.
Or it happens when God closes
the eyes, ears, and heart as he has done with the Jews and others who reject
His Truth.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:24
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up
front, I am communicating where I am at.
Your problem is that you can not accept
what I write - so why cloak it in devious terms.
Why not
come right out and tel it like it
isLance? God knows and after all He
is the "important One" It is
He who holds life and death in His hands. What is
man whose breath is in his nostrils?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite
from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to
communicate'.
From: Judy
Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is
false.
Says who and upon what basis?
Heresy according to the "Church Fathers"?
2. Insofar as one can 'know who is
accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear
that DM does also.
Then you and DM are the
"authorities" and your word is greater than God's Word and His
judgment?
3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's
Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the
believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering
therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me.
The Lord has never made such a
statement. You did. The Lord's statement is in Matt
7:21,22
4. I don't claim that 'noone is able to
comprehend the oracles of God'. Rather, Judy, I suggerst that noone
comprehends exhaustively. These are not the same.
Where does God say those who
follow him and speak for him must comprehend exhaustively; didn't He
say they would be told what to speak in that same hour? Once more, this is your requirement, not
his.
5. I hold scripture in the highest
regard. I just don't hold in high regard is misuse. Who
would?
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Judy: As you and I have pretty much never 'clicked' on anything, would it be better for you and, for TT if we just gave one another's posts a wide birth? I'd respect that from my end if you wished it. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 27, 2006 11:37 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:06:42 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, while it is helpful to look at differences, communication also requires looking at areas of agreement. Surely there is something in what Lance says that you can find agreement with. Isn't there? For example, Lance says that the Lord is present in your gatherings. True? I'm not even so sure about that David; I rather think he stands at the door and knocks while we go on with our programs and dead religious works. Lance says God is present in the RCC. Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen Athenians,"in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), surely you can find some agreement about God's presence in the RCC. Acts 17:28 speaks of God's Omnipresence - Paul is trying to persuade these lost Athenians to seek Him. I don't see every person who claims to be RCC as going to hell per se while they still have time to repent and turn from idols to the living God. Lance says that no onecomprehends exhaustively. True? I don't burden myself with this kind of a question David - who knows? Lance says that Scripture is to be held in high regard. True? Jesus the Living Word says that if we love Him and hold Him in high regard we will be doing what He says. Now please don't think that I am saying that you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying to help you communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and affirm that, then when you tweak other areas, you might lead him to understanding your viewpoint a little better. I do appreciate your concern David but I don't see the above happening any time soon - Lance speaks on an intellectual level and I am talking about the spiritual reality of God's revelation. The two are like oil and water. I think you have some good things to say to Lance, but I also agree with Lance that what we have here is a failure to communicate. This happens when one side stubbornly cannot hear the other side. Or it happens when God closes the eyes, ears, and heart as he has done with the Jews and others who reject His Truth. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up front, I am communicating where I am at. Your problem is that you can not accept what I write - so why cloak it in devious terms. Why not come right out and tel it like it isLance? God knows and after all He is the "important One" It is He who holds life and death in His hands. What is man whose breath is in his nostrils? On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound bite from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'. From: Judy Taylor On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is false. Says who and upon what basis? Heresy according to the "Church Fathers"? 2. Insofar as one can 'know who is accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd appear that DM does also. Then you and DM are the "authorities" and your word is greater than God's Word and His judgment? 3. I don't 'defend' the RCC, Judy. God's Spirit is present with the believers among them as He is with the believers in DM's gathering, Dean's gathering and, your gathering therefore, you ought to take it up with the Lord and, not me. The Lord has n
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
Why Lance?
You disagree just as muchwith Dean, DavidM, and
with the Mormon boys, do you want us all to give
you a wide berth? This reminds me of the state of
the backslidden and fallen away religious system
Ppl acting like everything is wonderful on the surface,
walking out of separate doors and dying inside.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:03:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy: As you and I have pretty much never
'clicked' on anything, would it be better for you and, for TT if we just gave
one another's posts a wide birth? I'd respect that from my end if you wished
it.
From: Judy Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:06:42 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, while it is helpful to look at
differences, communication also requires looking at areas of
agreement. Surely there is something in what Lance says that you can
find agreement with. Isn't there?
For example, Lance says that the Lord is
present in your gatherings. True?
I'm not even so sure about
that David; I rather think he stands at the door and knocks while we go on
with our programs
and dead religious
works.
Lance says God is present in the
RCC. Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen
Athenians,"in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28),
surely you can find some agreement about God's presence in the
RCC.
Acts 17:28 speaks of God's
Omnipresence - Paul is trying to persuade these lost Athenians to seek
Him. I don't see every person
who claims to be RCC as
going to hell per se while they still have time to repent and turn from
idols to the living God.
Lance says that no onecomprehends
exhaustively. True?
I don't burden myself with
this kind of a question David - who knows?
Lance says that Scripture is to be held
in high regard. True?
Jesus the Living Word says
that if we love Him and hold Him in high regard we will be doing what He
says.
Now please don't think that I am saying
that you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying to help
you communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and affirm that,
then when you tweak other areas, you might lead him to understanding your
viewpoint a little better.
I do appreciate your
concern David but I don't see the above happening any time soon - Lance
speaks on an intellectual level
and I am talking about the
spiritual reality of God's revelation. The two are like oil and
water.
I think you have some good things
to say to Lance, but I also agree with Lance that what we have here is a
failure to communicate. This happens when one side stubbornly cannot
hear the other side.
Or it happens when God
closes the eyes, ears, and heart as he has done with the Jews and others
who reject His Truth.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006
9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or
the Opinions of Men
On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and up
front, I am communicating where I am at.
Your problem is that you can not accept
what I write - so why cloak it in devious
terms. Why not
come right out and tel it like it
isLance? God knows and after all He is the "important One" It is
He who holds life and death in His hands. What
is man whose breath is in his
nostrils?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound
bite from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to
communicate'.
From: Judy
Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
1. The 'way you see it' Judy, is
false.
Says who and upon what basis?
Heresy according to the "Church Fathers"?
2. Insofar as one can 'know who is
accepted', I count Calvin and Luther among that number. It'd
appear that DM does also.
Then you and DM are the
"authoritie
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
That, Judy, was not my meaning.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 27, 2006 13:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
Why Lance?
You disagree just as muchwith Dean, DavidM, and
with the Mormon boys, do you want us all to give
you a wide berth? This reminds me of the state
of the backslidden and fallen away religious system
Ppl acting like everything is wonderful on the
surface, walking out of separate doors and dying inside.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:03:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy: As you and I have pretty much never
'clicked' on anything, would it be better for you and, for TT if we just
gave one another's posts a wide birth? I'd respect that from my end if you
wished it.
From: Judy Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:06:42 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, while it is helpful to look at
differences, communication also requires looking at areas of
agreement. Surely there is something in what Lance says that you
can find agreement with. Isn't there?
For example, Lance says that the Lord
is present in your gatherings. True?
I'm not even so sure
about that David; I rather think he stands at the door and knocks while
we go on with our programs
and dead religious
works.
Lance says God is present in the
RCC. Well, if Paul at Athens can say to the heathen
Athenians,"in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts
17:28), surely you can find some agreement about God's presence in the
RCC.
Acts 17:28 speaks of
God's Omnipresence - Paul is trying to persuade these lost Athenians to
seek Him. I don't see every person
who claims to be RCC as
going to hell per se while they still have time to repent and turn from
idols to the living God.
Lance says that no
onecomprehends exhaustively. True?
I don't burden myself
with this kind of a question David - who knows?
Lance says that Scripture is to be
held in high regard. True?
Jesus the Living Word
says that if we love Him and hold Him in high regard we will be doing
what He says.
Now please don't think that I am
saying that you just accept all that Lance says. I'm just trying
to help you communicate. Hear what he says that is true, and
affirm that, then when you tweak other areas, you might lead him to
understanding your viewpoint a little better.
I do appreciate your
concern David but I don't see the above happening any time soon - Lance
speaks on an intellectual level
and I am talking about
the spiritual reality of God's revelation. The two are like oil
and water.
I think you have some good
things to say to Lance, but I also agree with Lance that what we have
here is a failure to communicate. This happens when one side
stubbornly cannot hear the other side.
Or it happens when God
closes the eyes, ears, and heart as he has done with the Jews and others
who reject His Truth.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006
9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or
the Opinions of Men
On whose terms Lance? I am being honest and
up front, I am communicating where I am at.
Your problem is that you can not accept
what I write - so why cloak it in devious
terms. Why not
come right out and tel it like it
isLance? God knows and after all He is the "important One" It is
He who holds life and death in His hands.
What is man whose breath is in his
nostrils?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:02:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This, IMO, is NOT A DIALOGUE! This is a
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MONOLOGUE. This, Judy, is why I posted that sound
bite from 'Cool Hand Luke', 'what we have here is a failure to
communicate'.
From: Judy Taylor
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:46:10 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 09:55 Subject: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** You spoke my question "G"? Moderator-This simply means that the rules against insults and personal attacks are going to be unforced by me-others are under my protection and will get fair treatment-I owe that to God not to those who will not keep their agreement and abide by the rules. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 25, 2006 18:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** ftr, what does this mean? On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:40:32 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I plan on enforcing the rules of protection on TT against those who love ch[ao]s
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** You spoke my question "G"? Moderator-This simply means that the rules against insults and personal attacks are going to be unforced by me-others are under my protection and will get fair treatment-I owe that to God not to those who will not keep their agreement and abide by the rules. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 25, 2006 18:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** ftr, what does this mean? On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:40:32 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I plan on enforcing the rules of protection on TT against those who love ch[ao]s
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 10:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** You spoke my question "G"? Moderator-This simply means that the rules against insults and personal attacks are going to be unforced by me-others are under my protection and will get fair treatment-I owe that to God not to those who will not keep their agreement and abide by the rules. - Original Message - From:
Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the Opinions of Men
I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk in darkness; while others embrace the light and as scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn it shines brighter till the full day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has and ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the whole loaf. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:28:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore some of that which you believe say is error. Correct? This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex. From: Judy Taylor No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come. I believe somewalk in complete and total darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours or mine. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has all of it. Do you disagree? From: Judy Taylor You speak as though there were no "objective Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where you live. Not so for me and others. We may bethe minority but then just because your opinion a majority or ecumenical one; this ishardly a recommendation - is it?? On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:42:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re: the Muslims. If John Lennon were to have been my brother then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult. From: Dean Moore cd: Maybe to John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism. In short-express your self but don't let it get personal. From: Lance Muir IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you 'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue. By the way, wasn't there some kind of mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above subject heading? No-there isn't any "new rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce thisthen the issue of that person wrongs will become part of the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and how long can two /three people carry on the same conversation? - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 26, 2006 07:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] *** To all list members-Moderator Comment*** You spoke my question "G"? Moderator-This simply means that
