Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "It is a sense of one religion being a true religion," Miller said. "He has made a choice. But it is very complicated. It involves emotions. And you are in fact negating something in favor of something else. That makes it a difficult thing when you set it up in public that way." This is exactly where we all go wrong (IMO). If we believe that the "image of God" (Gen 1:26-27). is a shared and vital sense of community .(the picture), if we believe that the experience of God is intimately related to our benevolent activity in and with that community (Isa 58:9-11), that the only undeniable manifestation of God's presence is our interaction with one another (I John 4:12), that the requirements of the "law" are fulfilled in our offering to God and to our fellow man (I John 1:21) .(the activity), then we will see the value and benefit in Jame's definition of "pure and undefiled religion" (James 1:27). (the reality). Absolutely nowhere in scripture is "pure and undefiled religion" given the definition that is implicit in the above rabbinical comment. The choice we have to make is bound up in the sharing of God's love and bounty with others or not. Accepting that Christ is the Son of God in the flesh opens the door to the confident pursuit of the hope that lies within each of us -- but it is not the only judgment factor on that day when God judges man through Jesus Christ (Rom 2:16). The search for the true church, for right religion, for "truth" as defined by some sort of systematic theology, is indefensible in light of biblical teaching as expressed in the above. a brother John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John, I didt remember posting the quote below, and have no idea what you are talking about. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a sense of one religion being a true religion, Miller said. He has made a choice. But it is very complicated. It involves emotions. And you are in fact negating something in favor of something else. That makes it a difficult thing when you set it up in public that way. This is exactly where we all go wrong (IMO). If we believe that the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). is a shared and vital sense of community .(the picture), if we believe that the experience of God is intimately related to our benevolent activity in and with that community (Isa 58:9-11), that the only undeniable manifestation of God's presence is our interaction with one another (I John 4:12), that the requirements of the law are fulfilled in our offering to God and to our fellow man (I John 1:21) .(the activity), then we will see the value and benefit in Jame's definition of pure and undefiled religion (James 1:27). (the reality). Absolutely nowhere in scripture is pure and undefiled religion given the definition that is implicit in the above rabbinical comment. The choice we have to make is bound up in the sharing of God's love and bounty with others or not. Accepting that Christ is the Son of God in the flesh opens the door to the confident pursuit of the hope that lies within each of us -- but it is not the only judgment factor on that day when God judges man through Jesus Christ (Rom 2:16). The search for the true church, for right religion, for truth as defined by some sort of systematic theology, is indefensible in light of biblical teaching as expressed in the above. a brother John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/22/2004 10:55:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I didt remember posting the quote below, and have no idea what you are talking about. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "It is a sense of one religion being a true religion," Miller said. "He has made a choice. But it is very complicated. It involves emotions. And you are in fact negating something in favor of something else. That This may have been a part of a response post -- I do not remember. I can go back and find it if you prefer. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
not change his identity as a Jew. I don't want to stop being Jewish, he said. I can't stop being Jewish. Steve Pokin can be reached a [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/8/2004 4:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would also recomend OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH by Marvin Wilson. Sterns commentary is exelent but without some background in the Jewish roots of Christianity it could be tough for you. Another good book is CHRISTIANITY IS JEWISH by Edith Schaeffer. Jeff Thanks for heads up. Sterns commentary is, indeed, excellent. I am not totally illiterate when it comes to Jewish roots, and have no problem with the commentary. I regard the Old Testament scriptures as the history of the Christian church -- a bias that should demand more time spent in those scriptures. I have a dead line to meet with my thoughts regarding Kruger, and that is where I am spending my time -- expanding my paramenters and all. I might add that I see the Christian church and the Family of God as being somewhat different in terms of demographics. John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/8/2004 4:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would also recomend OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH by Marvin Wilson. Sterns commentary is exelent but without some background in the Jewish roots of Christianity it could be tough for you. Another good book is CHRISTIANITY IS JEWISH by Edith Schaeffer. Jeff Thanks for heads up. Sterns commentary is, indeed, excellent. I am not totally illiterate when it comes to "Jewish roots," and have no problem with the commentary. I regard the Old Testament scriptures as the history of the Christian church -- a bias that should demand more time spent in those scriptures. I have a dead line to meet with my thoughts regarding Kruger, and that is where I am spending my time -- expanding my paramenters and all. I might add that I see the Christian church and the Family of God as being somewhat different in terms of demographics. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Good! I hope you enjoy them. I'm sure we will have some delightful discussions as we [both] agree and disagree with the writers. I haven't read Garr, yet, but I will put that book on my to-buy list. Thanks. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:14 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to youIn a message dated 9/7/2004 2:11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation.I will tell you (and Tim) that I have purchased three books to help me understand your point of view: Paul, the Jewish Theologian by Young, Restoring Our Lost Legacy by Garr, Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. All three appear to be well written. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John, Since we didnt get far together with Kruger, Im interested in what you think of Garrs book. I havent read itwill wait for your report on it as well as the others. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Good! I hope you enjoy them. I'm sure we will have some delightful discussions as we [both] agree and disagree with the writers. I haven't read Garr, yet, but I will put that book on my to-buy list. Thanks. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/7/2004 2:11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- they're 'in' as a result. The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation. I will tell you (and Tim) that I have purchased three books to help me understand your point of view: Paul, the Jewish Theologian by Young, Restoring Our Lost Legacy by Garr, Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. All three appear to be well written. John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/8/2004 2:48:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Since we didnt get far together with Kruger, Im interested in what you think of Garrs book. I havent read itwill wait for your report on it as well as the others. Izzy Se, senoreta --- interesting. I put "senoreta" into spell check and it gave me snorter. Snorter is a word? Yes, Mam John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I would also recomend OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH by Marvin Wilson. Sterns commentary is exelent but without some background in the Jewish roots of Christianity it could be tough for you. Another good book is CHRISTIANITY IS JEWISH by Edith Schaeffer. Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/7/2004 2:11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation.I will tell you (and Tim) that I have purchased three books to help me understand your point of view: Paul, the Jewish Theologian by Young, Restoring Our Lost Legacy by Garr, Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. All three appear to be well written. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Hey, while you're at it, what about Stern's, Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospels? --slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:48 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you I would also recomend OUR FATHER ABRAHAM, JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH by Marvin Wilson. Sterns commentary is exelent but without some background in the Jewish roots of Christianity it could be tough for you. Another good book is CHRISTIANITY IS JEWISH by Edith Schaeffer. Jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/7/2004 2:11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation.I will tell you (and Tim) that I have purchased three books to help me understand your point of view: Paul, the Jewish Theologian by Young, Restoring Our Lost Legacy by Garr, Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. All three appear to be well written. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 10:28 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to youSlade wrote: Good for the parents of John the B. Does this mean that their righteousness exceeded the need for faith to be credited to them in place of their righteous failures (Ro 4:14-25)? I find this interesting. Youre not arguing with Tim (or me) on this point. Youre arguing with the One who oversaw its compilation. Of course not. I see a certain combination of scripture as saying one thing and you see a different combination of scripture as saying something else. Neither of us are arguing with God. Another interesting point: the Torah was never given as an alternative to faith. Historically, Jewish people have never believed that the keeping of commandments was a way to be granted a place in the World to Come. They [the Israelis] are Gods Chosen People faults and all and theyre in, as a result. The Israelis have clung to this promise in faith.I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Monday, September 06, 2004 10:29 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Slade wrote: Another interesting point: the Torah was never given as an alternative to faith. Historically, Jewish people have never believed that the keeping of commandments was a way to be granted a place in the World to Come. They [the Israelis] are Gods Chosen People faults and all and theyre in, as a result. The Israelis have clung to this promise in faith. Terry:I think it's time we took a reality check, 'cause you sure have a different view of all this than I do.The Pharisees thought they were "in" simply because they were Jews.They were wrong, and if you believe that, you are wrong. Being a Jew has no benefit whatsoever if you do not put all your trust in Jesus, the Messiah, as your Lord and Savior.Some in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together, and God considered their lack of understanding. That has changed.Those on this list who have heard the Gospel will be judged on what they have done with Christ, not on their diet or their foreskin or their ancestors. Slade: You misunderstood what I wrote above as being my doctrinal statement. I need no reality check inTHAT department, at least. However, I disagree with you wording "Some in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together." I think it should read, "All in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together." Meanwhile, to be fair, I think this following statement is likewise true: "Some today are saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fits together." Terry:As for the Mosaic law, it is over, fulfilled, finished, kaput.It was for a certain time (until Jesus rose from the dead.)It was for a certain group of people (Only the Children of Israel, commonly called Jews, Lev27:34 ) It was for a certain purpose (To show that no one was capable of saving themselves). Slade: Wedo not agree on this point. In fact, I think I can honestly say there is nothing in that paragraph Ido agree with. I find that amazing! I do like your Yiddishkeit, though! [To clarify, Torah Observance does not grantEternal Life. Faith and the Grace of Godare the vehicles.] Terry:As for the Jews, God chose them, not because they were bigger or stronger or better or brighter or purer. They were not. He chose them for the same reason that He fed five thousand with a lunch meant for one. To show that He was a powerful God who could do very much with very little. Slade: We agree for the most part. He chose them because they were the smallest (Moshe tells us that), but He chose us also on the merit of Father Avraham (Genesis tells us that). Terry:God could have chosen a king, or a pharaoh, a builder of pyramids or a mighty warrior. Instead He started with an idol worshiping goat farmer, a nobody, from a nowhere place called Ur. Abraham wasn't something special.God is something special. Abraham was an adulterer who was willing to let his wife have sex with an Egyptian rather than risk his life.The best quality he had was jumping when God said," jump". May I suggest that if God spoke to you, you would jump too.Nothing special about the father of the Jews.Everything special about the God of the Jews. The Father of the Israelis is special because of his monotheism, obedience of God, and his faith. The beautiful thing about God is thatHe remembers our finer points. BY the way, you have no real proof that Avram committed idolatry while in Ur. It's true that Ur was a city of idolatry, but Avram cannot be convicted of this by simply living there. In fact, Terach seems to be the one who got the original call to leave Ur (read the text) and Avram followed his father like a good, obedient son. In like manner, we should not convict Lot of homosexuality because Sodom was a city of open homosexuality. If you look at the genealogy of Jesus, the descendants of Abraham, it looks like a rogue's gallery, murderers, liars, whores, adulterers, coveters and on and on. If these are part of the family of God, anyone can be part of the family of God.It makes no difference if you are Greek or Jew, rich or poor, lily white or black as the ace of spades. Where you spend eternity depends solely on your relationship to Jesus Christ, not to Abraham. True. There are a good number of Tzaddikim [righteous men women] as well. I like to spend more time on the positive things. Those six hundred laws have been replaced by two, both based on love. Sadly, most don't understand the concept
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Slade Henson wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 10:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Slade wrote: Another interesting point: the Torah was never given as an alternative to faith. Historically, Jewish people have never believed that the keeping of commandments was a way to be granted a place in the World to Come. They [the Israelis] are Gods Chosen People faults and all and theyre in, as a result. The Israelis have clung to this promise in faith. Terry:I think it's time we took a reality check, 'cause you sure have a different view of all this than I do.The Pharisees thought they were "in" simply because they were Jews.They were wrong, and if you believe that, you are wrong. Being a Jew has no benefit whatsoever if you do not put all your trust in Jesus, the Messiah, as your Lord and Savior.Some in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together, and God considered their lack of understanding. That has changed.Those on this list who have heard the Gospel will be judged on what they have done with Christ, not on their diet or their foreskin or their ancestors. Slade: You misunderstood what I wrote above as being my doctrinal statement. I need no reality check inTHAT department, at least. However, I disagree with you wording "Some in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together." I think it should read, "All in the old testament were saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fit together." Meanwhile, to be fair, I think this following statement is likewise true: "Some today are saved by faith in the promised seed, not quite knowing how it all fits together." Terry:As for the Mosaic law, it is over, fulfilled, finished, kaput.It was for a certain time (until Jesus rose from the dead.)It was for a certain group of people (Only the Children of Israel, commonly called Jews, Lev27:34 ) It was for a certain purpose (To show that no one was capable of saving themselves). Slade: Wedo not agree on this point. In fact, I think I can honestly say there is nothing in that paragraph Ido agree with. I find that amazing! I do like your Yiddishkeit, though! [To clarify, Torah Observance does not grantEternal Life. Faith and the Grace of Godare the vehicles.] Terry:As for the Jews, God chose them, not because they were bigger or stronger or better or brighter or purer. They were not. He chose them for the same reason that He fed five thousand with a lunch meant for one. To show that He was a powerful God who could do very much with very little. Slade: We agree for the most part. He chose them because they were the smallest (Moshe tells us that), but He chose us also on the merit of Father Avraham (Genesis tells us that). Terry:God could have chosen a king, or a pharaoh, a builder of pyramids or a mighty warrior. Instead He started with an idol worshiping goat farmer, a nobody, from a nowhere place called Ur. Abraham wasn't something special.God is something special. Abraham was an adulterer who was willing to let his wife have sex with an Egyptian rather than risk his life.The best quality he had was jumping when God said," jump". May I suggest that if God spoke to you, you would jump too.Nothing special about the father of the Jews.Everything special about the God of the Jews. The Father of the Israelis is special because of his monotheism, obedience of God, and his faith. The beautiful thing about God is thatHe remembers our finer points. BY the way, you have no real proof that Avram committed idolatry while in Ur. It's true that Ur was a city of idolatry, but Avram cannot be convicted of this by simply living there. In fact, Terach seems to be the one who got the original call to leave Ur (read the text) and Avram followed his father like a good, obedient son. In like manner, we should not convict Lot of homosexuality because Sodom was a city of open homosexuality. If you look at the genealogy of Jesus, the descendants of Abraham, it looks like a rogue's gallery, murderers, liars, whores, adulterers, coveters and on and on. If these are part of the family of God, anyone can be part of the family of God.It makes no difference if you are Greek or Jew, rich or poor, lily white or black as the ace of spades. Where you spend eternity depends solely on your relationship to Jesus Christ, not to Abraham. True. There are a good number of Tzaddikim [righteous men women] as well. I like to spend more time on the positive things. Those six hundred laws have been replaced by two, both based on love. Sadly, most don't understand the concept of "summary." The whole
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/7/2004 2:11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. Agreed. I am merely stating the reason why [Scriptural or not] the Jewish people do not keep the Law for salvation. I will tell you (and Tim) that I have purchased three books to help me understand your point of view: Paul, the Jewish Theologian by Young, Restoring Our Lost Legacy by Garr, Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. All three appear to be well written. John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim -- I am saying that faith (the conviction that Jesus is the Son and His promises are mine), love (love God and love thy neightbor), and the Force of God within us constitute the "new" Law/Covenant." Are you saying that Lev. 19:18 and Ex. 23:5 state fully the new covenant relationship? If so, we fully agree. John PS I have no idea what is meant by this statement: Tim says: Uh, you wouldnt happen to be voting for Kerry would you? Splain please. In a message dated 9/4/2004 4:52:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I return unto you your original verses, submitted to prove the Law changed. Please use your verses to prove this? Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Wouldnt you agree that there wasnt much change over the thousands of years between those two verses? Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ Exodus 23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Not much change in that one either.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/4/2004 4:52:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You submitted these verses in defense of your argument that the Law has changed. I say your god changed. Mine does not, he is the same yesterday today and forever. So He was just kidden when He spoke of changing his mind? (Jere 18:5-10) John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Slade wrote: Good for the parents of John the B. Does this mean that their righteousness exceeded the need for faith to be credited to them in place of their righteous failures (Ro 4:14-25)? I find this interesting. Youre not arguing with Tim (or me) on this point. Youre arguing with the One who oversaw its compilation. Of course not. I see a certain combination of scripture as saying one thing and you see a different combination of scripture as saying something else. Neither of us are arguing with God. Another interesting point: the Torah was never given as an alternative to faith. Historically, Jewish people have never believed that the keeping of commandments was a way to be granted a place in the World to Come. They [the Israelis] are Gods Chosen People faults and all and theyre in, as a result. The Israelis have clung to this promise in faith. I have no idea from scripture as to why you have written the above, expecailly that last thought -- "they're 'in' as a result." The Jew and the Gentile are the same in the sight of God in terms of salvation's walk. They have no special consideration in that regard. John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Good for the parents of John the B. Does this mean that their righteousness exceeded the need for faith to be credited to them in place of their righteous failures (Ro 4:14-25)? I find this interesting. Youre not arguing with Tim (or me) on this point. Youre arguing with the One who oversaw its compilation. Another interesting point: the Torah was never given as an alternative to faith. Historically, Jewish people have never believed that the keeping of commandments was a way to be granted a place in the World to Come. They [the Israelis] are Gods Chosen People faults and all and theyre in, as a result. The Israelis have clung to this promise in faith. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you No one is saying that commandment keeping is out, certainly not me. None of these passages say that one is lost because he fails in his commandment keeping. None establish the Mosaical code. So if you agree with that , then case closed.. but I will make a few comments. John In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:23:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John said In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. God Says 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. The context for this statement is I John 1:7-9 and the rest of chapter 2. Its a good read. Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Amen and so what. Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. So we all have to sell what we own and follow him? Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Good for the parents of John the B. Does this mean that their righteousness exceeded the need for faith to be credited to them in place of their righteous failures (Ro 4:14-25)? Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. Amen and so what? Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Amen. He is discussing the place of the commandments, not the work of grace in the face of imminent and certian failure. (Ro 3:23) Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Do you have any idea as to the nature of the commandments in view in this context? Legalese or love of neighbor? 1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Do you think Paul is invoking this idea, here in this text, to convice the Corinthian reader to follow the advice is gives in the verses immediately following? 1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Contextually what is the nature of the commandment keeping in this text? A whole raft of legalese or an inwardness known as love? 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Ditto to 2:3 comments. 1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. Commandments in view in this context -- legalese or believe in Jesus and love your neighbor? 1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Ditto to 3:22 comments. 1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. Commandments -- legalese or love of the brethren/ (4:20,21)? 1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Ditto v 2 comments. 2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. Ditto on 2:3 comments above. Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jt:You have almost completely misapprehended what has been spoken both here and,at various times when spokenby four participants on TT. I, speaking only for myself, will no longer engage you on this issue. As to 'mentors. well, you've named yours (Dake, Scofield et al) while I have as well (TFT, Kruger, Polanyi et al who have enabled a deeper apprehension of the relation of the Incarnation to the Atonement). To the extent that they facilitate critical realism vis a vis God God's Gospel thank God and, when not well. Thanks, Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 18:02 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you jt: What you write to the list Lance sounds like adherence to this great big historical fact, call it what you like but in it's outworking this does not appear to affectthe way you think and it is based on a completely faulty premise which is that Jesus in his humanity was exactly like us. If true this would negate Him as a holy sacrifice and an offering for our sin because he would not be holy and without spot, he would have been born into spiritual deathjust like the rest of us who are born in the first Adam...rather than a 'holy' thing. A point your mentors appear to have overlooked. judyt On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:52:20 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:Fast food diet I'm promoting? In many posts, this one included, I've outlined my understanding of Scripture's teaching vis a vis The Nature of God The Nature of God's Gospel. (These two interlocking themes I believe to be a distillation of all of our conversations about everything). You top the list of those who have made such dismissive remarks. Would you be so kind, seriously, as to say in your own words what it is that you find me to be saying in order that I might come to comprehend your caricature? thanks, Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 11:34 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:17:25 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Correctamundo Johnmeister!! In a message dated 9/1/2004 3:41:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue") One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam) js: Again, much of what Tim and I are saying is mirrored thinking. In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. All of the above is true. And God honored the notion of grace, His notion of grace, even during legal times (Ps. 51:16,17 and Is 58:9-11)Correct? jt: Careful John.. there are lots of voices out there. I don't believe Tim and you have the same understanding or that you are saying the same thing.And the fast food diet Lance is promoting above will kill you. Remember all that glitters is not gold.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Iz:A title of some interest (you have it I think)Sabbath by Abraham Joshua Heschel - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 17:39 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jt:I'm answering this one as it was on (for me) the overnight list. I asked for your words, Judy, as I and pretty much every participant on TT, have noted your evasiveness when you truly don't understand something.(Covenant) However, as I said in an earlier post, I see no point in engaging you further on such matters. thanks, Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 18:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you jt: Why do you ask formy words Lance when God's Word is so much better? On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:54:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:God is a Covenant God?? Again, in your own words..what is a 'covenant God?' On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:34 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. jt: Not a good object lesson and more of an avoidance technique. God is a "Covenant" God all the way through scripture and the New Covenant is called just that. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" This denominational indoctrination is so difficult to get past. js:It is in fact a great object lesson avoiding absolutely nothing. It was an effort to illustrate the fact that the law and the covenant are joined at the hip in some regard. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" you ask. Because in a number of places in scripture this comparison is made --- not to mention the prophetical description of the "new" in comparison to the existing covenant (Jere 31:31-34) Tim: The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for?js: Everybody has a niche.Tim: When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. js: This covenant of inwardness -- something you do not accept -- has always been there. God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. But it is His revelation that cast issue in view of two covenants. At the Cross, things changed dramatically. The "law" was used to drive home the fact that man will never be justified in the keeping of law. This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. jt: How will it come back to haunt him? We've discussed Jeremiah 31:33 a lot here, I thought we understood and agreed that this is the New Covenant promise John. js:Yes we have. See below for potential problem (i.e. the haunting.) Tim: I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW.js: Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." jt: I don't think he is trying to win anything John - His testimony as I understand it does not include denominational training. He reads the Bible. What he is saying here is what the Bible teaches. js: All this is to say that he agrees with you. jt:Tim is saying what I see in scripture even thoughI didn't come the same way as he.When theSpirit of God reached out to me I ran to Church circles thinking they would help me along; after much maze like confusion I came to the same place and have learned more from reading the Bible myself. So far as I can tell he is saying the same as what I have been trying to say but he says it a little differently. Tim: You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
What a remarkably retrograde move this would be! One more 'testimony' supporting one more 'scriptural' point of view. Look again at the opening song of 'Fiddler on theRoof' (Tradition). - Original Message - From: C. Tim Winkley To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 20:16 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you I rest from work and purchasing for the most part. I congregate with like-minded believers. The issue is not the just the Sabbath however, the issue is Gods Law, of which Sabbath is a part. The second and fourth commands were changed (officially as far as the christian church is concerned) in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea. I realize that John took insult when I mentioned that the Mother of Harlots made that change. I meant no insult; I stated a fact, a fact that I can easily document. I am an ex-catholic from a very catholic family; priests, altar boy, parochial school, etc I have inside experience with Catholicism. It is important that we understand that Gods Law is obeyed by first hearing His voice. The Dynamic change that took place at the point in time that Jesus offered Himself as the perfect (obedient) sacrifice (penalty) was that the Law became written in our hearts. Prior to that the conscience awareness of sin was arrived at by experiencing the death of sin through the sacrificial system. When one comes to the place where they are contrite for their sins, they realize there is no hope as far as the Law is concerned, they need Salvation. God made His way to man through the Messiah. Man is then able to hear His voice. With all that said we are all responsible to hear His voice and obey His Law. Unfortunately, we have been raised in a culture, both theological and secular, that has grossly turned their back on said Law. We have to come out of this culture. Even seeing the need to do so is impossible without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. If we ask God he is faithful to open the eyes of our understanding. We need to walk softly among others who are sincerely serving at different stages of growth. I find sincere believers in many denominations. The level of sincerity is measured by willingness to look closely at Scripture, seek God for guidance and courageously face the need of change. At any stage of growth, if we reject Gods voice, and turn a stiff-neck to His commands, we have arrested the onward progress of the relationship. Basically, we have broken the first command. Something other than obeying and honoring my Creator has surfaced that I am not willing to release. Repentance and obedience presents the opportunity to go on with the relationship. I apologize for not answering others emails today as I am buried in some work. I will get to them tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:39 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
It seems to me Izzy, when someone has a misunderstanding of the beauty of Gods Law, we who love it are immediately accused of trying to find legal justification for keeping it (which gendereth to bondage). They tout Galatians. But the thing about Galatians that people miss is the Law came after grace. Without Grace there is no obedience. If we could obey on our own, what need have we of Jesus? Jesus gave us two things on this earth, perfect obedience to the Law and he paid the penalty for our disobedience. Could we have paid for our transgression on our own? Of course, for the Law says that the wages of sin is death. We could die, face judgement and be condemned and the penalty would be paid. What Christ gave us that we possessed not was obedience. The perfect obedient one, that was His nature. If we accept Him and His spirit, we have a new nature, obedience. Our Liberty is to hear God as individuals without a human go between (priest), and obey. Indeed it is only through this new nature that we are empowered to obey. Grace first, obedience second. I am free now to obey. Before I was in bondage. I was not free to say no to addiction, fornication, lust for things, profanity, etc C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, So do you still have a problem, or what? Izzy Its just that I asked obey what and you answered obey God rather than man --- I really do not see that as an aswer to my question. But, if you only speaking of obeying the Lord, I agree. of course. John Boy John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Hi Tim, But the thing about Galatians that people miss is the Law came after grace. That is the best thing you have written since you came to this forum. Grace has always been first. Lance, Bill, and I have argued it constantly. Good luck in getting anyone other than John, Lance and I to agree with you here. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C. Tim Winkley Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you It seems to me Izzy, when someone has a misunderstanding of the beauty of Gods Law, we who love it are immediately accused of trying to find legal justification for keeping it (which gendereth to bondage). They tout Galatians. But the thing about Galatians that people miss is the Law came after grace. Without Grace there is no obedience. If we could obey on our own, what need have we of Jesus? Jesus gave us two things on this earth, perfect obedience to the Law and he paid the penalty for our disobedience. Could we have paid for our transgression on our own? Of course, for the Law says that the wages of sin is death. We could die, face judgement and be condemned and the penalty would be paid. What Christ gave us that we possessed not was obedience. The perfect obedient one, that was His nature. If we accept Him and His spirit, we have a new nature, obedience. Our Liberty is to hear God as individuals without a human go between (priest), and obey. Indeed it is only through this new nature that we are empowered to obey. Grace first, obedience second. I am free now to obey. Before I was in bondage. I was not free to say no to addiction, fornication, lust for things, profanity, etc C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, So do you still have a problem, or what? Izzy Its just that I asked obey what and you answered obey God rather than man --- I really do not see that as an aswer to my question. But, if you only speaking of obeying the Lord, I agree. of course. John Boy John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Exactly, Tim. And the only way to enter into obedience is exactly the same way that we enter into forgiveness. By F-a-i-t-h. It makes me smile as I read itwhat good news!!! Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C. Tim Winkley Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 6:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you It seems to me Izzy, when someone has a misunderstanding of the beauty of Gods Law, we who love it are immediately accused of trying to find legal justification for keeping it (which gendereth to bondage). They tout Galatians. But the thing about Galatians that people miss is the Law came after grace. Without Grace there is no obedience. If we could obey on our own, what need have we of Jesus? Jesus gave us two things on this earth, perfect obedience to the Law and he paid the penalty for our disobedience. Could we have paid for our transgression on our own? Of course, for the Law says that the wages of sin is death. We could die, face judgement and be condemned and the penalty would be paid. What Christ gave us that we possessed not was obedience. The perfect obedient one, that was His nature. If we accept Him and His spirit, we have a new nature, obedience. Our Liberty is to hear God as individuals without a human go between (priest), and obey. Indeed it is only through this new nature that we are empowered to obey. Grace first, obedience second. I am free now to obey. Before I was in bondage. I was not free to say no to addiction, fornication, lust for things, profanity, etc C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, So do you still have a problem, or what? Izzy Its just that I asked obey what and you answered obey God rather than man --- I really do not see that as an aswer to my question. But, if you only speaking of obeying the Lord, I agree. of course. John Boy John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 9:32:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy What commands? The Sabboth observance, Laws of cleanliness? etc. or love God and love your neighbor as yourself? We no longer have (or need) temple sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. We no longer live in a religious theocratic government, requiring the religious leaders (like in Israel) to enforce governmental lawsalthough they should be and certainly are used as the gold standard for civil laws today. We should obey any of the moral laws that remainjust as Jesus did. He summed them up welllove God and your neighbor. I believe, personally, that loving God means remembering His Sabbath, as He wrote that it is established forever, and His Word never rescinded that commandment. If you wish to live a healthy life and believe that God knows best about that subject, you might take seriously the laws regarding food and cleanliness. I am just learning about them in that respect myself. Law keeping is not a salvation issue. Only the Blood cleanses us from sin. God has written his law in your heart (if you have the Holy Spirit), if you will listen to what it tells you. Law keeping (which just means believing/obeying Gods commandments) is a way to avoid sin and live a sanctified life. I do not consider myself to be the Enforcer of the Law; that is the job of the Holy Spiritto woo hearts that hear. End of story. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
So far, Lance, its a real snoozer. J Ill post my take on Kruger as soon as I get time. Appreciating your recommendations, as always, Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Iz:A title of some interest (you have it I think)Sabbath by Abraham Joshua Heschel - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 17:39 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/2/2004 6:23:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy What commands? The Sabboth observance, Laws of cleanliness? etc. or love God and love your neighbor as yourself? We no longer have (or need) temple sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. We no longer live in a religious theocratic government, requiring the religious leaders (like in Israel) to enforce governmental lawsalthough they should be and certainly are used as the gold standard for civil laws today. We should obey any of the moral laws that remainjust as Jesus did. He summed them up welllove God and your neighbor. I believe, personally, that loving God means remembering His Sabbath, as He wrote that it is established forever, and His Word never rescinded that commandment. If you wish to live a healthy life and believe that God knows best about that subject, you might take seriously the laws regarding food and cleanliness. I am just learning about them in that respect myself. Law keeping is not a salvation issue. Only the Blood cleanses us from sin. God has written his law in your heart (if you have the Holy Spirit), if you will listen to what it tells you. Law keeping (which just means believing/obeying Gods commandments) is a way to avoid sin and live a sanctified life. I do not consider myself to be the Enforcer of the Law; that is the job of the Holy Spiritto woo hearts that hear. End of story. Izzy Ok (and a very good reply, I might add), we are not talking about the salvation issue. We all agree that one is saved at the point of conviction apart from obedience to law (Ro 3:28). That obedience is a natural extension of our conviction that Jesus really is the Son of God. That the Spirit has been given to us as a seal or guarantee of our salvation and that spirit of God expresses itself in love -- since God is love. The Ten Commandments are in effect -- #'s 1-10 and not much else. That New Testament scripture is all about bring us back to the Original or Old Law. How am I doing? I ask you since Tim is not in the habit of making specific answer to my responses. the disciple, John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/2/2004 6:23:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy What commands? The Sabboth observance, Laws of cleanliness? etc. or love God and love your neighbor as yourself? We no longer have (or need) temple sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood. We no longer live in a religious theocratic government, requiring the religious leaders (like in Israel) to enforce governmental lawsalthough they should be and certainly are used as the gold standard for civil laws today. We should obey any of the moral laws that remainjust as Jesus did. He summed them up welllove God and your neighbor. I believe, personally, that loving God means remembering His Sabbath, as He wrote that it is established forever, and His Word never rescinded that commandment. If you wish to live a healthy life and believe that God knows best about that subject, you might take seriously the laws regarding food and cleanliness. I am just learning about them in that respect myself. Law keeping is not a salvation issue. Only the Blood cleanses us from sin. God has written his law in your heart (if you have the Holy Spirit), if you will listen to what it tells you. Law keeping (which just means believing/obeying Gods commandments) is a way to avoid sin and live a sanctified life. I do not consider myself to be the Enforcer of the Law; that is the job of the Holy Spiritto woo hearts that hear. End of story. Izzy Ok (and a very good reply, I might add), we are not talking about the salvation issue. We all agree that one is saved at the point of conviction apart from obedience to law (Ro 3:28). That obedience is a natural extension of our conviction that Jesus really is the Son of God. That the Spirit has been given to us as a seal or guarantee of our salvation and that spirit of God expresses itself in love -- since God is love. The Ten Commandments are in effect -- #'s 1-10 and not much else. That New Testament scripture is all about bring us back to the Original or Old Law. How am I doing? I ask you since Tim is not in the habit of making specific answer to my responses. the disciple, John Smithson Well, 90% aint bad. J Ill wait for Tim to give you the true skinny. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Izzy:Bless you for your God-motivated activity (don't like activism). Keep it up sister. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 31, 2004 18:50 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy jumps back in in red! J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:50:42 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy, Welcome to the fray. To answer your first question, unequivocally I consider myself to be able to judge (used in the sense of discernment, not in the sense of putting myself in a position above the other) the foreign policy and its inventors in America. I certainly believe that God calls us to justice andnot only that but that He loves justice. As His follower I abide by that. jt:I agree that God loves justice and that this is what we should seek in our ownparticular area of influence. However, unless we feel called to run for public office what is the point of this kind ofdiscernment. I have a difficult time believing it is one of the spiritual giftings as I don't find a call for ordinary believers to judge nations in any gospel or epistle.. Do you believe abortion is wrong Judy? There we go. We both agree that we should fight injustice. Hide behind 'do not judge' verses but people are dying. jt: Yes abortion is wrong - Thou shalt not kill. And I would never have one. However, I can not force my preference upon another; every person has a God-given right to make their own choice even when it is the wrong one and causes judgment and death. Judy, I cannot believe you are actually saying that you approve of the laws allowing abortion. Tell me it isnt so! If you do, for the reason above, then dont you agree that we should not outlaw ANY form of murder, theft, etc, because everyone has a right to their own choice? You are correct in saying that the UN is a political organization. They have been doing this survey for years. Canada has topped the list at least 4 times in the last 10 years but has recently fallen to 4th. Dont feel bad, Jonathan, the UN is a despicable institution of godlessness. No one would worry about their opinion, as it is directly in opposition to Gods opinion on just about any given subject. http://www.rfcnet.org/newsletter/september2002k.asp jt: I lived in Canada for several years - what makes it so wonderful in the eyes of the UN? Terrorism should be solved by ideology not by violence. Do you think thats why we had such success up until 9/11 in stamping out terrorism? Look at the fruit of nothing but talk and appeasement, Jonathan! Dead bodies of innocent men, women, and children. jt: How does one reason with demons? How does ideology stop women from Chechnya from blowing up airplanes and killing other people and how does ideology stop the al Queda network from cutting the heads off hostages to get their own way politically? They obviously have a different ideology from ours and so far as they are concerned it is going to be their way or no way. I'm sure glad they don't yet have access to a nuclear weapon. Your lack of knowledge regarding such figures as Pol Pot is agonizing to me. You are aware that the US was in complete support of Pol Pot for years?Another reason why godly Americans should be active in politics; to keep men like JFK from being President. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot) Jonathan, your own websit explains that At times, the United States directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot and his hostility against the Soviet Union. The USA never sanctioned any atrocities by Pol Pot. And I hope you do realize that it was Democrat JFK who embroiled America in that entire Vietnam travesty, Democrat Johnson who continued it, and Republican Nixon who withdrew American presence. You realize that Saddam was a best friend to the States prior to the invasion of Kuwait? The USA sided with crazy Iraq in order to keep the country from being overrun by even crazier Iran and causing Middle East instability. That was then; this is now. You realize thatUS support was during their horrors they perpetuated on their own citizens? No I do not. You realize that the United States was convicted of Terrorism by the World Court f
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue") One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 31, 2004 17:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 12:28:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sorry in the last message you used the term Law, I understand covenant as used in this email.The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for?Everybody has a niche. When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds.This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW.Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy.LOL. I love rudeness. I just have to shake my head and laugh. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy.Thanks for trying to figure out what I was asking. Do you keep the Law?As defined in terms of faith (conviction), love and the Spirit -- absolutely. C. Tim WinkleyAka Law Man
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
C. Tim Winkley wrote: Terry, Perhaps you should read the verse again. Who else would your enemy be other than someone who hateth thee? Exodus 23:5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man Thanks. I missed that first time around. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you - the reds vs the blue :)
Jt:'You go' Oprahism UN Institution of goodlessness - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 08:05 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you - the reds vs the blue :) Izzy jumps back in in red! J and Judy responds in black/or red where it doesn'twork for me:) On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:50:42 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy,Welcome to the fray. To answer your first question, unequivocally I consider myself to be able to judge (used in the sense of discernment, not in the sense of putting myself in a position above the other) the foreign policy and its inventors in America. I certainly believe that God calls us to justice andnot only that but that He loves justice. As His follower I abide by that. jt:I agree that God loves justice and that this is what we should seek in our ownparticular area of influence. However, unless we feel called to run for public office what is the point of this kind ofdiscernment. I have a difficult time believing it is one of the spiritual giftings as I don't find a call for ordinary believers to judge nations in any gospel or epistle.. Do you believe abortion is wrong Judy? There we go. We both agree that we should fight injustice. Hide behind 'do not judge' verses but people are dying. jt: Yes abortion is wrong - Thou shalt not kill. And I would never have one. However, I can not force my preference upon another; every person has a God-given right to make their own choice even when it is the wrong one and causes judgment and death. Judy, I cannot believe you are actually saying that you approve of the laws allowing abortion. Tell me it isnt so! JT: It isn't so!! I don't approve of laws or government funding for abortion, both are evil. If you do, for the reason above, then dont you agree that we should not outlaw ANY form of murder, theft, etc, because everyone has a right to their own choice? JT: No I don't go for any of the above, government is there todeter evil and to curb anarchy but in the case of abortion reality says that some women will find another way and if they do they have opened the door to a curse on their life. I've heard testimonies of women who later came to the Lord and they spoke of something like PTSD. You are correct in saying that the UN is a political organization. They have been doing this survey for years. Canada has topped the list at least 4 times in the last 10 years but has recently fallen to 4th. Dont feel bad, Jonathan, the UN is a despicable institution of godlessness. No one would worry about their opinion, as it is directly in opposition to Gods opinion on just about any given subject. http://www.rfcnet.org/newsletter/september2002k.asp JT: I would agree with Izzy's observation above. jt: I lived in Canada for several years - what makes it so wonderful in the eyes of the UN? Terrorism should be solved by ideology not by violence. Do you think thats why we had such success up until 9/11 in stamping out terrorism? Look at the fruit of nothing but talk and appeasement, Jonathan! Dead bodies of innocent men, women, and children. JT: Just this morning in Russia, 500 children held hostage with nut cases threatening to blow up the school if their "gangsta" friends are not released from prison. How does your'idealogy' deal with this one Jonathan? 500 frantic families. jt: How does one reason with demons? How does ideology stop women from Chechnya from blowing up airplanes and killing other people and how does ideology stop the al Queda network from cutting the heads off hostages to get their own way politically? They obviously have a different ideology from ours and so far as they are concerned it is going to be their way or no way. I'm sure glad they don't yet have access to a nuclear weapon. Your lack of knowledge regarding such figures as Pol Pot is agonizing to me. You are aware that the US was in
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you - the reds vs the blue :)
Jt:I don't but, please note how popular culture pervades your world (i.e. speach) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 08:46 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you - the reds vs the blue :) On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:21:40 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:'You go' Oprahism UN Institution of goodlessness JT: I haven't a cluewhat Oprah is saying Lance, I never watch her but I can certainly trust you to keep me up on what is happening in the world out there. I may have heard our girls say it but they don't watch Oprah either because they are working when her show is on. I do hope you don't consider TV land to be normal American life. Does your comment concerning the UN mean that you agree about this Godless Institution or is this tongue-in-cheek also? From: Judy Taylor Izzy jumps back in in red! J and Judy responds in black/or red where it doesn'twork for me:)
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Certainly but it was not finished until the cross. They looked forward, you look back; whats the diff? they that do the will of my Father His Fathers will is expressed in the commandments. blessed are they that do His commandments Peters first word to the Gentiles but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, the same is accepted of him. Fear God and Work righteousness. Sounds like the same old story to me. The code of conduct was there for David. He learned the lesson that comes from realizing the law was a tutor until Christ. Ps 51 finds David understanding the importance of contrition and brokenness at a time when the altar of sacrifice was God's plan Thank you for making my point. We differ in that you say the Law has changed, I say the change was built into the Law therefore the Law has only been perfected. Are you saying it is not there for you? Should you murder? Should you dishonor your parents? Should you forget the Sabbath? Should you steal? Should you covet? Think the cross. Think the sacrifice. Cross is the modern term, insufficient in describing Gods glory. I am saying that the law associated with the Covenant has changed. Jere 31:31-34 I am saying that all the works were finished from the foundation of the world; BTW I am just repeating Scripture. Name one individual in the Bible that was not borne under the penalty of death Me. (I do not believe in original sin). I said nothing of original sin. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simultude of Adams trangression Oh, in the Bible? Pick a name What do you mean by this? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 8:22:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brother John, My responses in blue (you better duck) And you believe that as well, unless you are still butchering bulls and goats out in your backyard. No need, my Christ, the Messiah said it is finished, which was foretold in the Law many years prior. Certainly but it was not finished until the cross. Did you forget the lesson of 2 Corinthians 3? 2 Corinthians 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: Think the cross. Moses looked through to the abolishment of the Levitical and sacrificial system, and saw the finished work of the Messiah (which is why he glowed), he yet continued in sacrifice because he knew that the time had not come. Think the Cross Have you forgotten the lesson of 1 Corinthians 10, they (Israelites in the wilderness) were all baptized into Moses, ate the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Think the Cross. The law by which we are judged is no longer a code of conduct, written in stone or in some way codified. And you are saying that Abraham, Isaac, David etc were judged by a code of conduct? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham hath whereof to glory, but not before God. The code of conduct was there for David. He learned the lesson that comes from realizing the law was a tutor until Christ. Ps 51 finds David understanding the importance of contrition and brokenness at a time when the altar of sacrifice was God's plan (also). Rather we are judged in view of an inwardness that gives us a relationship with God, knowingly or not; that says yes to the faith of Christ and His sacrifice providing our gracious redemption. Are you actually saying that the Israelites were somehow judged differently? I am saying that the law associated with the Covenant has changed. Jere 31:31-34. It is not about commandment keeping or a degree of holiness. Surely you are speaking of the perversion of the Pharisee. Do not hang such on what God has called perfect and just and holy I am speaking of the message found in Romans 3-5. The Law has not changed it has always cursed the self-reliant and empowered the faithful and trusting. Did you forget the lesson of the Psalms and later quoted in Romans there are none that seeketh God, they have all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there none righteous, no not one? Yeah, I remember that. Name one individual in the Bible that was not borne under the penalty of death, name one, other than Jesus that could boast perfect adherence to the commandments. Me. (I do not believe in original sin). Oh, in the Bible? Pick a name. It is a nice story you tell about coming home, but home has
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:42:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 06:38:27 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue") One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 8/31/2004 12:28:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sorry in the last message you used the term Law, I understand covenant as used in this email. The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. jt: Not a good object lesson and more of an avoidance technique. God is a "Covenant" God all the way through scripture and the New Covenant is called just that. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" This denominational indoctrination is so difficult to get past. It is in fact a great object lesson avoiding absolutely nothing. It was an effort to illustrate the fact that the law and the covenant are joined at the hip in some regard. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" you ask. Because in a number of places in scripture this comparison is made --- not to mention the prophetical description of the "new" in comparison to the existing covenant (Jere 31:31-34) The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for? Everybody has a niche. When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. This covenant of inwardness -- something you do not accept -- has always been there. God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. But it is His revelation that cast issue in view of two covenants. At the Cross, things changed dramatically. The "law" was used to drive home the fact that man will never be justified in the keeping of law. This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. jt: How will it come back to haunt him? We've discussed Jeremiah 31:33 a lot here, I thought we understood and agreed that this is the New Covenant promise John. Yes we have. See below for potential problem (i.e. the haunting.) I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW. Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." jt: I don't think he is trying to win anything John - His testimony as I understand it does not include denominational training. He reads the Bible. What he is saying here is what the Bible teaches. All this is to say that he agrees with you. You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. LOL. I love rudeness. I just have to shake my head and laugh. jt: Why do you assume his intent is to be rude John rather than that he is just stating his belief? Let's see -- I asked about keeping the Sabboth and suddenly I am in the camp parented by The Mother Harlots. Complimenatary or insulting? I report, you decide. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Thanks for trying to figure out what I was asking. Do you keep the Law? As defined in terms of faith (conviction), love and the Spirit -- absolutely. jt: Interesting - does this mean you are conformed to the "image of Christ" already John? judyt I am on that very pathway.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim I am going to continue this discussion in spite of the nagging thought that we may be talking about much the same thing. . I mean - it appears that we might be using the same argument to arrive at two very different conclusions. Maybe we do not know enough about the others ultimate conclusions. Time will tell. John In a message dated 9/1/2004 6:17:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly but it was not finished until the cross. They looked forward, you look back; whats the diff? they that do the will of my Father His Fathers will is expressed in the commandments. blessed are they that do His commandments What do you think was finished at the cross? Peters first word to the Gentiles but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, the same is accepted of him. How do you tie this to Romans 3:27 and 4:3-5? Fear God and Work righteousness. Sounds like the same old story to me. So what in the world was Jere 31:31-34 talking about? The code of conduct was there for David. He learned the lesson that comes from realizing the law was a tutor until Christ. Ps 51 finds David understanding the importance of contrition and brokenness at a time when the altar of sacrifice was God's plan Thank you for making my point. We differ in that you say the Law has changed, I say the change was built into the Law therefore the Law has only been perfected. Yes we do. Are you saying it is not there for you? Should you murder? Should you dishonor your parents? Should you forget the Sabbath? Should you steal? Should you covet? I am saying that in the workings of Christ --- understanding that His sacrifice is offered once and for all, understanding that His blood continually flows on my behalf --- that God does not judge me in these things. What I want to be and what I am are not necessarily the same things. I am saved from the death that I deserve and that salvation gives me all the time I need to get this righteousness thing on the right track. In the mean time, my account (the "righteousness column") is fully credited based upon my faith (or the faith of Christ - I am still working on that one) Ro 4:14-25. Think the "cross." Think the sacrifice. Cross is the modern term, insufficient in describing Gods glory. Not a biblcal term? I am saying that the law associated with the Covenant has changed. Jere 31:31-34 I am saying that all the works were finished from the foundation of the world; BTW I am just repeating Scripture. Name one individual in the Bible that was not borne under the penalty of death Me. (I do not believe in original sin). I said nothing of original sin. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simultude of Adams trangression Go back and take a look at the wording of your question? If you are :borne" under the penality of sin -- it is original (unless "borne" in your question has to do with "bearing the burden.") Oh, in the Bible? Pick a name What do you mean by this? "Name one individual in the Bible that was not borne under the penalty of death" -- pick a name. Seems plain enough (?) By this I mean to be saying " that death spread to all men because all have sinned" (Rom 5:12.) C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John wrote: God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. God wrote: Matt 12:7; Mark 12:33] to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:10:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. God wrote: Matt 12:7; Mark 12:33] to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. Izzy Obey what? And please reconcile Ps 51:16-17 and Isa 58:9-11.Verses like these are my problem. I believe them as they are worded. I could be wrong. John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Correctamundo Johnmeister!! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 11:12 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 3:41:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue") One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam)Again, much of what Tim and I are saying is mirrored thinking. In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. All of the above is true. And God honored the notion of grace, His notion of grace, even during legal times (Ps. 51:16,17 and Is 58:9-11)Correct?Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:21:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Correctamundo Johnmeister!! Wheeewww.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jt:Fast food diet I'm promoting? In many posts, this one included, I've outlined my understanding of Scripture's teaching vis a vis The Nature of God The Nature of God's Gospel. (These two interlocking themes I believe to be a distillation of all of our conversations about everything). You top the list of those who have made such dismissive remarks. Would you be so kind, seriously, as to say in your own words what it is that you find me to be saying in order that I might come to comprehend your caricature? thanks, Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 11:34 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:17:25 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Correctamundo Johnmeister!! In a message dated 9/1/2004 3:41:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue") One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam) js: Again, much of what Tim and I are saying is mirrored thinking. In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. All of the above is true. And God honored the notion of grace, His notion of grace, even during legal times (Ps. 51:16,17 and Is 58:9-11)Correct? jt: Careful John.. there are lots of voices out there. I don't believe Tim and you have the same understanding or that you are saying the same thing.And the fast food diet Lance is promoting above will kill you. Remember all that glitters is not gold.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jt:God is a Covenant God?? Again, in your own words..what is a 'covenant God?' - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 01, 2004 11:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:34 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. jt: Not a good object lesson and more of an avoidance technique. God is a "Covenant" God all the way through scripture and the New Covenant is called just that. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" This denominational indoctrination is so difficult to get past. js:It is in fact a great object lesson avoiding absolutely nothing. It was an effort to illustrate the fact that the law and the covenant are joined at the hip in some regard. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" you ask. Because in a number of places in scripture this comparison is made --- not to mention the prophetical description of the "new" in comparison to the existing covenant (Jere 31:31-34) Tim: The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for?js: Everybody has a niche.Tim: When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. js: This covenant of inwardness -- something you do not accept -- has always been there. God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. But it is His revelation that cast issue in view of two covenants. At the Cross, things changed dramatically. The "law" was used to drive home the fact that man will never be justified in the keeping of law. This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. jt: How will it come back to haunt him? We've discussed Jeremiah 31:33 a lot here, I thought we understood and agreed that this is the New Covenant promise John. js:Yes we have. See below for potential problem (i.e. the haunting.) Tim: I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW.js: Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." jt: I don't think he is trying to win anything John - His testimony as I understand it does not include denominational training. He reads the Bible. What he is saying here is what the Bible teaches. js: All this is to say that he agrees with you. jt:Tim is saying what I see in scripture even thoughI didn't come the same way as he.When theSpirit of God reached out to me I ran to Church circles thinking they would help me along; after much maze like confusion I came to the same place and have learned more from reading the Bible myself. So far as I can tell he is saying the same as what I have been trying to say but he says it a little differently. Tim: You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy.js: LOL. I love rudeness. I just have to shake my head and laugh. jt: Why do you assume his intent is to be rude John rather than that he is just stating his belief? js: Let's see -- I asked about keeping the Sabboth and suddenly I am in the camp parented by The Mother Harlots. Complimenatary or insulting? I report, you decide. jt: I never take things like this quite so personally John. My question is "truth or error?" I may not have worded it as bluntly but what Tim says is true. Check it out in Exodus 13:3. The sabbath is a sign between God and Israel. This is especially meaningful to me because I have a dear friend who is all taken up with this sabbath thing having been recruited by the 7th Day Adventists. Everything about her outwardly has changed and I don't believe it is for the good. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath,
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John wrote: God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. God wrote: Matt 12:7; Mark 12:33] to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. Izzy Obey what? And please reconcile Ps 51:16-17 and Isa 58:9-11.Verses like these are my problem. I believe them as they are worded. I could be wrong. John John, Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, We must obey God rather than men. I have looked up the scriptures you referenced, and wonder what is the question? Obviously God would rather we obey Him than disobey, requiring repentance. Obviously He would rather have us repent than stubbornly refuse; thereby making sacrifices useless, empty rituals. A humble, contrite heart is precious to the Lord because it is free of rebellion and disobedience. Izzy Psalm 51 16 For You (1) do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a (2) broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. Isaiah 58 9 Then you will (1) call, and the LORD will answer; You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am.' If you (2) remove the yoke from your midst, The (3) pointing of the finger and (4) speaking wickedness, 10 And if you (5) give yourself to the hungry And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your (6) light will rise in darkness And your gloom will become like midday. 11 And the (7) LORD will continually guide you, And (8) satisfy your desire in scorched places, And (9) give strength to your bones; And you will be like a (10) watered garden, And like a (11) spring of water whose waters do not fail.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
jt: Why do you ask formy words Lance when God's Word is so much better? On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:54:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jt:God is a Covenant God?? Again, in your own words..what is a 'covenant God?' On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:40:34 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. jt: Not a good object lesson and more of an avoidance technique. God is a "Covenant" God all the way through scripture and the New Covenant is called just that. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" This denominational indoctrination is so difficult to get past. js:It is in fact a great object lesson avoiding absolutely nothing. It was an effort to illustrate the fact that the law and the covenant are joined at the hip in some regard. Why try to make it something else that is "new or different?" you ask. Because in a number of places in scripture this comparison is made --- not to mention the prophetical description of the "new" in comparison to the existing covenant (Jere 31:31-34) Tim: The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for?js: Everybody has a niche.Tim: When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. js: This covenant of inwardness -- something you do not accept -- has always been there. God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. But it is His revelation that cast issue in view of two covenants. At the Cross, things changed dramatically. The "law" was used to drive home the fact that man will never be justified in the keeping of law. This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. jt: How will it come back to haunt him? We've discussed Jeremiah 31:33 a lot here, I thought we understood and agreed that this is the New Covenant promise John. js:Yes we have. See below for potential problem (i.e. the haunting.) Tim: I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW.js: Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." jt: I don't think he is trying to win anything John - His testimony as I understand it does not include denominational training. He reads the Bible. What he is saying here is what the Bible teaches. js: All this is to say that he agrees with you. jt:Tim is saying what I see in scripture even thoughI didn't come the same way as he.When theSpirit of God reached out to me I ran to Church circles thinking they would help me along; after much maze like confusion I came to the same place and have learned more from reading the Bible myself. So far as I can tell he is saying the same as what I have been trying to say but he says it a little differently. Tim: You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy.js: LOL. I love rudeness. I just have to shake my head and laugh. jt: Why do you assume his intent is to be rude John rather than that he is just stating his belief? js: Let's see -- I asked about keeping the Sabboth and suddenly I am in the camp parented by The Mother Harlots. Complimenatary or insulting? I report, you decide. jt: I never take things like this quite so personally John. My question is "truth or error?" I may not have worded it as bluntly but what Tim says is true. Check it out in Exodus 13:3. The sabbath is a sign between God and Israel. This is especially meaningful to me because I have a dear friend who is all taken up with this sabbath thing having been recruited by the
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:30:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: I don't think he is trying to win anything John - His testimony as I understand it does not include denominational training. He reads the Bible. What he is saying here is what the Bible teaches. js: All this is to say that he agrees with you. jt: Tim is saying what I see in scripture even though I didn't come the same way as he. When the Spirit of God reached out to me I ran to Church circles thinking they would help me along; after much maze like confusion I came to the same place and have learned more from reading the Bible myself. So far as I can tell he is saying the same as what I have been trying to say but he says it a little differently. It is never right to say, "This is what the Bible says." It is always right to say "this is what I believe the Bible says." I Co 8:1-3. I often say the former but always ean the later. an apostle of the Lord, John ??? Could this be?
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:37:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: js: Again, much of what Tim and I are saying is mirrored thinking. In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. All of the above is true. And God honored the notion of grace, His notion of grace, even during legal times (Ps. 51:16,17 and Is 58:9-11) Correct? jt: Careful John .. there are lots of voices out there. I don't believe Tim and you have the same understanding or that you are saying the same thing. And the fast food diet Lance is promoting above will kill you. Remember all that glitters is not gold. You have read my post far too quickly, I believe. My post does not pretend to say that we have the same understanding. John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
ShieldsFamily wrote: John wrote: God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. God wrote: Matt 12:7; Mark 12:33] to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. Izzy Obey what? And please reconcile Ps 51:16-17 and Isa 58:9-11.Verses like these are my problem. I believe them as they are worded. I could be wrong. John John, Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. I have looked up the scriptures you referenced, and wonder what is the question? Obviously God would rather we obey Him than disobey, requiring repentance. Obviously He would rather have us repent than stubbornly refuse; thereby making sacrifices useless, empty rituals. A humble, contrite heart is precious to the Lord because it is free of rebellion and disobedience. Izzy === Makes sense to me Sis. Well put. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 2:28:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: God has always been a God who honored outpouring and contrition over obedience. God wrote: Matt 12:7; Mark 12:33] to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. Izzy Obey what? And please reconcile Ps 51:16-17 and Isa 58:9-11.Verses like these are my problem. I believe them as they are worded. I could be wrong. John John, Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. Okeee. I have looked up the scriptures you referenced, and wonder what is the question? Obviously God would rather we obey Him than disobey, requiring repentance. Obviously He would rather have us repent than stubbornly refuse; thereby making sacrifices useless, empty rituals. A humble, contrite heart is precious to the Lord because it is free of rebellion and disobedience. Izzy In the former passage. David contrasts what he is supposed to do with what he has learned about ocntrition and brokenness. In the later, God through Isaiah (we believe) gives us some insight on finding the God who seeks our partnership. We gind Him as we express a vibrant sense of community. Psalm 51 16 For You (1) do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a (2) broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. My favorite passage is below. Isaiah 58 9 "Then you will (1) call, and the LORD will answer; You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am.' If you (2) remove the yoke from your midst, The (3) pointing of the finger and (4) speaking wickedness, 10 And if you (5) give yourself to the hungry And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your (6) light will rise in darkness And your gloom will become like midday. 11 "And the (7) LORD will continually guide you, And (8) satisfy your desire in scorched places, And (9) give strength to your bones; And you will be like a (10) watered garden, And like a (11) spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 2:39:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy It has something to do with someone's mother.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I rest from work and purchasing for the most part. I congregate with like-minded believers. The issue is not the just the Sabbath however, the issue is Gods Law, of which Sabbath is a part. The second and fourth commands were changed (officially as far as the christian church is concerned) in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea. I realize that John took insult when I mentioned that the Mother of Harlots made that change. I meant no insult; I stated a fact, a fact that I can easily document. I am an ex-catholic from a very catholic family; priests, altar boy, parochial school, etc I have inside experience with Catholicism. It is important that we understand that Gods Law is obeyed by first hearing His voice. The Dynamic change that took place at the point in time that Jesus offered Himself as the perfect (obedient) sacrifice (penalty) was that the Law became written in our hearts. Prior to that the conscience awareness of sin was arrived at by experiencing the death of sin through the sacrificial system. When one comes to the place where they are contrite for their sins, they realize there is no hope as far as the Law is concerned, they need Salvation. God made His way to man through the Messiah. Man is then able to hear His voice. With all that said we are all responsible to hear His voice and obey His Law. Unfortunately, we have been raised in a culture, both theological and secular, that has grossly turned their back on said Law. We have to come out of this culture. Even seeing the need to do so is impossible without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. If we ask God he is faithful to open the eyes of our understanding. We need to walk softly among others who are sincerely serving at different stages of growth. I find sincere believers in many denominations. The level of sincerity is measured by willingness to look closely at Scripture, seek God for guidance and courageously face the need of change. At any stage of growth, if we reject Gods voice, and turn a stiff-neck to His commands, we have arrested the onward progress of the relationship. Basically, we have broken the first command. Something other than obeying and honoring my Creator has surfaced that I am not willing to release. Repentance and obedience presents the opportunity to go on with the relationship. I apologize for not answering others emails today as I am buried in some work. I will get to them tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim, Thanks. Thats how I remember the Sabbath also. I also came out of the RCC, praise God. I agree with everything you said. Its something you dont learn from church. Its something the Holy Spirit teaches you when you are ready. Its not something given to everyone, and it is not something you can convince anyone about. If their heart is ready they will receive it. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C. Tim Winkley Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you I rest from work and purchasing for the most part. I congregate with like-minded believers. The issue is not the just the Sabbath however, the issue is Gods Law, of which Sabbath is a part. The second and fourth commands were changed (officially as far as the christian church is concerned) in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea. I realize that John took insult when I mentioned that the Mother of Harlots made that change. I meant no insult; I stated a fact, a fact that I can easily document. I am an ex-catholic from a very catholic family; priests, altar boy, parochial school, etc I have inside experience with Catholicism. It is important that we understand that Gods Law is obeyed by first hearing His voice. The Dynamic change that took place at the point in time that Jesus offered Himself as the perfect (obedient) sacrifice (penalty) was that the Law became written in our hearts. Prior to that the conscience awareness of sin was arrived at by experiencing the death of sin through the sacrificial system. When one comes to the place where they are contrite for their sins, they realize there is no hope as far as the Law is concerned, they need Salvation. God made His way to man through the Messiah. Man is then able to hear His voice. With all that said we are all responsible to hear His voice and obey His Law. Unfortunately, we have been raised in a culture, both theological and secular, that has grossly turned their back on said Law. We have to come out of this culture. Even seeing the need to do so is impossible without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. If we ask God he is faithful to open the eyes of our understanding. We need to walk softly among others who are sincerely serving at different stages of growth. I find sincere believers in many denominations. The level of sincerity is measured by willingness to look closely at Scripture, seek God for guidance and courageously face the need of change. At any stage of growth, if we reject Gods voice, and turn a stiff-neck to His commands, we have arrested the onward progress of the relationship. Basically, we have broken the first command. Something other than obeying and honoring my Creator has surfaced that I am not willing to release. Repentance and obedience presents the opportunity to go on with the relationship. I apologize for not answering others emails today as I am buried in some work. I will get to them tonight or tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, How do you observe the Sabbath? Please explain what you mean about the Keep the Sabbath Holy statement. Thanks, Izzy You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John said In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. God Says 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 3:41:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One plan (Incarnation), one covenant (Abrahamic), one 'delivery system' (Grace) (Again I say read the paragraph prior to the 'decalogue) One Saviour (Jesus-God/Man, Incarnate, Israelite, Second Adam) Again, much of what Tim and I are saying is mirrored thinking. In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. All of the above is true. And God honored the notion of grace, His notion of grace, even during legal times (Ps. 51:16,17 and Is 58:9-11) Correct? Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, So do you still have a problem, or what? Izzy Its just that I asked "obey what" and you answered obey God rather than man --- I really do not see that as an aswer to my question. But, if you only speaking of obeying the Lord, I agree. of course. John Boy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 9/1/2004 5:49:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, So do you still have a problem, or what? Izzy Its just that I asked obey what and you answered obey God rather than man --- I really do not see that as an aswer to my question. But, if you only speaking of obeying the Lord, I agree. of course. John Boy John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
No one is saying that commandment keeping is out, certainly not me. None of these passages say that one is lost because he fails in his commandment keeping. None establish the Mosaical code. So if you agree with that , then case closed.. but I will make a few comments. John In a message dated 9/1/2004 8:23:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John said In the end, he comes up with commandment keeping and I do not. God Says 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. The context for this statement is I John 1:7-9 and the rest of chapter 2. Its a good read. Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Amen and so what. Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. So we all have to sell what we own and follow him? Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Good for the parents of John the B. Does this mean that their righteousness exceeded the need for faith to be credited to them in place of their righteous failures (Ro 4:14-25)? Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. Amen and so what? Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Amen. He is discussing the place of the commandments, not the work of grace in the face of imminent and certian failure. (Ro 3:23) Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Do you have any idea as to the nature of the commandments in view in this context? Legalese or love of neighbor? 1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Do you think Paul is invoking this idea, here in this text, to convice the Corinthian reader to follow the advice is gives in the verses immediately following? 1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Contextually what is the nature of the commandment keeping in this text? A whole raft of legalese or an inwardness known as love? 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Ditto to 2:3 comments. 1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. Commandments in view in this context -- legalese or believe in Jesus and love your neighbor? 1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Ditto to 3:22 comments. 1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. Commandments -- legalese or love of the brethren/ (4:20,21)? 1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Ditto v 2 comments. 2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. Ditto on 2:3 comments above. Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. His commandments are not burdensome -- love God and love your neighbor as yourself. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/1/2004 9:32:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is there to obey except Gods commandments? Izzy What commands? The Sabboth observance, Laws of cleanliness? etc. or love God and love your neighbor as yourself?
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim, God's Law can be lost and it has been lost in the past. One exaple is in the book of Nehemiah when they found a copy and it was read to the people. They wept because they knew they had not been keeping it. We pretty much have the same situation today for all intents and purposes. Most people are ignorant of God's Law yet everyone claims to have a connection to Jesus. judyt On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:44:35 -0500 "C. Tim Winkley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I am with you on all that. I am not waiting around for God to crush us either; as much as I hate to say it, I believe it is inevitable. I have five children and a lovely wife. I am motivated to help change their world as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C. Tim Winkley Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you God is going to do that. Unfortunately, considering the culture has fallen and with the church apostasy ripening as foretold we can look forward to major disaster coming our way. If we study the Biblical pattern, for nations that God blessed, and then turned away we will find that a good crushing brought them to repentance. Dont get me wrong; I believe that we should be as active in our communities as possible. One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers. I visit jails and hand out homemade tracts (it is not a big blown out ministry but it is what I can do locally), God will honor our efforts and take note of our busyness. Trust me, we want God to notice our works in these last days. What are your suggestions? Tim Tim, I suggest first of all that we do not wait for God to crush us to do everything we can to make our nation a more God-fearing, righteous nation. We must do what we can do and trust Him to do the rest. I am praying that the Lord show me what we Believers can do to repent and return turn this nation towards righteousness. In the meantime I must: (1) Live a godly life myself. I must not tolerate any sin in my own life. I must walk in readiness to repent any time the Lord points out sin in me. (2) Be a force for godliness to my family, my friends, my neighbors, my society. Be salt and light in the society I live in. (3) Vote for godly men to rule in my government. (4) Pray without ceasing for our nation to repent of all sins. (5) Speak out against evil. Hate evil. Never compromise with evil. Never understand evil. Never vote for evil people, no matter what they promise to give me in return. (6) Dont expect to change the whole worldjust my little corner of it. Better to light my little corner than to curse the darkness. (7) Be a blessing to those I come in contact with. I could go on for a long timebut this would be a good time for input from other TTers! Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? John In a message dated 8/30/2004 7:46:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Judy, I appreciate your response. The people may lose the Law, but the Law in and of itself cannot be lost. For instance, the wages of sin is death. Whether or not someone consciously understands it or not makes no difference, they still pay death for sin. It is His Law (His Word) that holds all in place. We cannot change this. I agree with you that there are many who claim to know Jesus but reject His Law. This is the same as saying I know the Law but reject Jesus. The two are inseparable. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim, God's Law can be lost and it has been lost in the past. One exaple is in the book of Nehemiah when they found a copy and it was read to the people. They wept because they knew they had not been keeping it. We pretty much have the same situation today for all intents and purposes. Most people are ignorant of God's Law yet everyone claims to have a connection to Jesus. judyt On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:44:35 -0500 C. Tim Winkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim:Just answer the Bishop's question. - Original Message - From: C. Tim Winkley To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 31, 2004 07:12 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? JohnIn a message dated 8/30/2004 7:46:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote:One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Hi Izzy, As I asked please go back and read the thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Your grasp of this concept is slipping between your fingers at an alarming rate. Do not come to the table looking through your own ideologue. Do not come to the table just to prove someone else wrong. Come with humility. Your holier than thou response below is not needed. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan Dearest Jonathan, Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. You seem to assume that all morals are based upon secular/cultural agencies. Why would you, a Believer, make such an assumption? We are people of the Word, and our values are Gods values, and our morals are based upon such. The conscience of a Believer is not seared or secularit is Holy Spirit infused. A moral Believer is never out of touch with his Creator. The fact that you dispute this appalls me. As for non-believers, would you rather they have no basis of right and wrong? Do you think God judges them for their behavior? Would you rather they sin more or less? Do you think that the Hindu woman who gave half of her food to her neighbor was wrong to do the moral thing? Why would anyone be against moral behavior? It is not difficult to convince a moral non-Believer that he is a sinner. It is impossible to convince a non-believer who has no conscience at all that he is a sinner. It was a moral man who prayed, God help me, a sinner. It was an immoral man who said proudly, I am glad I am not a sinner like the rest. Which are you? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Hi Dave, I do not believe I have misquoted OReilly. His point was that there are other countries out there that will look out for you/take care of you (synonymous) more than the American government. Much of the book is dedicated to illustrate that this is true. His next point is that America is still the best place to live even though the first point is true. A lot of that reasoning is dealt with by you below. Basically it rests on the word autonomy which I do not believe to be a Christian concept. Since the garden humankind has pursued autonomy instead of community under God. I believe it will be the Western worlds downfall. For the record I think America is a great country. My issues with the United States are rarely domestic. My issues with America almost always revolve around their foreign policy since WW2. I hold them responsible for a massive amount of death around the world. This is easily proven by just a small amount of research. What I find saddening is that so few people are willing to do the work of research. One is accused of being a traitor, anti-American, liberal etc just for taking the time to do some checking of the facts. It is far more comfortable to sit back thinking everything is fine, drinking up the propaganda than to own up to the facts. 5 minutes at www.amazon.com looking at American foreign policy books or books on Bushs regime and you would come away with months if not years of reading material. There is so much material on this that it is scary. Is ignorance bliss? I value Canada for its safety, health care system and education. The latest UN results for the best country to live in are at the following link - http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_12_1_1.html. All of the tables can be reached here: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_indicators.cfm. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you And DaveH I find it hard to see how a country who will not take the bestcare of you is a country looking out for you. DAVEH: Some of us believe the best way to take care of people is to teach them to be self sufficient, rather than be dependent on the government. I don't want to get into a big political debate on this, but am pointing out the philosophical differences in what I (as a conservative) may believe in regard to this, and how others more liberal may feel about it. IMHO, a country that really is looking out for us, is not a country that enslaves us to a welfare system. Those who become addicted to the teat of the welfare State have not been very well cared for, but rather have become subdued by those politicians who ofttimes trade their promises of government will provide your well being for political power. Once the curse of welfare becomes ingrained for generations, it robs future generations of freedom. Now don't get me wrong, Jonathan.I'm not saying that welfare should be abolished. I just think that a country that is truly looking out for us, would encourage us to escape the welfare sinkhole so that will will not need our country to take the best care of us. Yikes...get me off this danged soapbox! Sorry to bore you. Have you read O'Reilly'sbook? DAVEH: No. And I thought about mentioning that when I replied to you, but failed to do so. Perhaps O'Reilly has a different perspective on this than me. I merely noted that you (apparently) misquoted him, and thought I'd toss my 2 cents into the discussion. Much of it is how the country and the institutions that inhabit itare not taking care of/looking out for you. DAVEH: Of course not. Few institutions look out for their inmates as much as they look out for their own existence. Think about it..the best possible thing in the world that could happen is for Christianity to have such an effect that nobody would commit crimes, and hence nobody would be incarcerated. Who would not want that? Wel...maybe the jailers?!?!?! Pick any government bureaucracy. Which one would want to do their job so efficiently as to not be needed? I dare say, precious fewprobably none. Does the welfare system really want everybody to get off welfare? Who would be the first to vote against their job? No, I suspect most in the system want status quo for the sake of the bureaucracy, not the benefit of those receiving the assistance. At least that's how I see it, Jonathan. Hhere I am, standing on that soapbox again. O'Reilly's opinion that Americais the best country in the world is due to two things that he repeatedlymentions: opportunity and the ability to make money. DAVEH: While you may not see the USA as the best country in the world, to what do you attribute it's modest success? IOW, what differentiates it from other countries that are more rooted in social welfarism? If you take away opportunity
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Izzy, Look at your definition of moral (even though we are talking about moralism here) below. Note the massive absence of one thing: GOD! As I attempt to stress to you there is no such thing as morals combined with God. Your definition below illustrates this wonderfully. Do you agree with the dictionary? Do you see how I used words from each of the definitions below in my original response (good, behaviour, conscience)? Do you see how you have added God to the definition? Also note my comment on OReillys book. I said that for moralism it was great. Therefore, I gave it a thumbs up. Moralism has its place. I am not against moral behaviour. For me to have to say this is appalling. I have over and over said that I believe moralism has to be submitted to God. When this is done it turns into living by the Spirit, connected with God. On its own it appears to be a good thing but it is just that, on its own. Even a Satanist can be moral Izzy. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Hi Izzy, As I asked please go back and read the thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Your grasp of this concept is slipping between your fingers at an alarming rate. Do not come to the table looking through your own ideologue. Do not come to the table just to prove someone else wrong. Come with humility. Your holier than thou response below is not needed. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan Dearest Jonathan, Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. You seem to assume that all morals are based upon secular/cultural agencies. Why would you, a Believer, make such an assumption? We are people of the Word, and our values are Gods values, and our morals are based upon such. The conscience of a Believer is not seared or secularit is Holy Spirit infused. A moral Believer is never out of touch with his Creator. The fact that you dispute this appalls me. As for non-believers, would you rather they have no basis of right and wrong? Do you think God judges them for their behavior? Would you rather they sin more or less? Do you think that the Hindu woman who gave half of her food to her neighbor was wrong to do the moral thing? Why would anyone be against moral behavior? It is not difficult to convince a moral non-Believer that he is a sinner. It is impossible to convince a non-believer who has no conscience at all that he is a sinner. It was a moral man who prayed, God help me, a sinner. It was an immoral man who said proudly, I am glad I am not a sinner like the rest. Which are you? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jonathan, Lets go back to square one in my post below. (1) Do you, or do you not, agree with the Dictionarys definition of moral? (2) Next, instead of name-calling, how about choosing one statement and telling me exactly why you disagree with it. Tell me exactly and precisely what statement I made below disturbs you. This is called intelligent discussion. It is also called humility. Try it; you might like it. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Hi Izzy, As I asked please go back and read the thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Your grasp of this concept is slipping between your fingers at an alarming rate. Do not come to the table looking through your own ideologue. Do not come to the table just to prove someone else wrong. Come with humility. Your holier than thou response below is not needed. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan Dearest Jonathan, Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. You seem to assume that all morals are based upon secular/cultural agencies. Why would you, a Believer, make such an assumption? We are people of the Word, and our values are Gods values, and our morals are based upon such. The conscience of a Believer is not seared or secularit is Holy Spirit infused. A moral Believer is never out of touch with his Creator. The fact that you dispute this appalls me. As for non-believers, would you rather they have no basis of right and wrong? Do you think God judges them for their behavior? Would you rather they sin more or less? Do you think that the Hindu woman who gave half of her food to her neighbor was wrong to do the moral thing? Why would anyone be against moral behavior? It is not difficult to convince a moral non-Believer that he is a sinner. It is impossible to convince a non-believer who has no conscience at all that he is a sinner. It was a moral man who prayed, God help me, a sinner. It was an immoral man who said proudly, I am glad I am not a sinner like the rest. Which are you? Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jonathan, Okay, at least here you are discussing instead of name calling or telling me to go read several books before you will talk. It seems that you believe in two kinds of morals (1) those that are God-based and (2) those that are secular-based. Do I have this right so far? Need I explain that I only believe in God-based morals. There are no other morals. All true morals are obedience to Gods Law, whether or not the person realizes that or not. If someone thinks it is moral to lie, then he is not a moral person. Lying is not moral no matter how much you believe it is. Why? Because Gods word says Do not bear false witness. Do you see my standard here? I do not believe there is a secular morality. When I speak of morality I am ONLY referring to God-based right vs wrong. A Satanist cannot be moral, but he can do moral acts, such as helping an old man across the street. Can you understand my viewpoint at all? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 7:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, Look at your definition of moral (even though we are talking about moralism here) below. Note the massive absence of one thing: GOD! As I attempt to stress to you there is no such thing as morals combined with God. Your definition below illustrates this wonderfully. Do you agree with the dictionary? Do you see how I used words from each of the definitions below in my original response (good, behaviour, conscience)? Do you see how you have added God to the definition? Also note my comment on OReillys book. I said that for moralism it was great. Therefore, I gave it a thumbs up. Moralism has its place. I am not against moral behaviour. For me to have to say this is appalling. I have over and over said that I believe moralism has to be submitted to God. When this is done it turns into living by the Spirit, connected with God. On its own it appears to be a good thing but it is just that, on its own. Even a Satanist can be moral Izzy. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Hi Izzy, As I asked please go back and read the thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Your grasp of this concept is slipping between your fingers at an alarming rate. Do not come to the table looking through your own ideologue. Do not come to the table just to prove someone else wrong. Come with humility. Your holier than thou response below is not needed. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan Dearest Jonathan, Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. You seem to assume that all morals are based upon secular/cultural agencies. Why would you, a Believer, make such an assumption? We are people of the Word, and our values are Gods values, and our morals are based upon such. The conscience of a Believer is not seared or secularit is Holy Spirit infused. A moral Believer is never out of touch with his Creator. The fact that you dispute this appalls me. As for non-believers, would you rather they have no basis of right
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Jonathan Hughes wrote: Hi Dave, I do not believe I have misquoted OReilly. His point was that there are other countries out there that will look out for you/take care of you (synonymous) DAVEH: That was the point of my response, Jonathan. To me, they are not synonymous. O'Reilly used one term (as you quoted in your original post) and you used the other as though it was the same thing. My point is that they are not the same. Looking out denotes one thing, taking care denotes another. That's the distinction I was trying to convey. Perhaps O'Reilly thinks there the same..I don't know, as I haven't read the book. I was simply looking at the logic of your original post. more than the American government. Much of the book is dedicated to illustrate that this is true. DAVEH: But does he say it, using both terms as the same? His next point is that America is still the best place to live even though the first point is true. A lot of that reasoning is dealt with by you below. Basically it rests on the word autonomy which I do not believe to be a Christian concept. Since the garden humankind has pursued autonomy instead of community under God. I believe it will be the Western worlds downfall. For the record I think America is a great country. My issues with the United States are rarely domestic. My issues with America almost always revolve around their foreign policy since WW2. I hold them responsible for a massive amount of death around the world. DAVEH: Hmm...IF the USA had not gotten involved, would there be more people in the world now, or less? And, would there be more people in subjugation or less? Just something to ponder.. This is easily proven by just a small amount of research. What I find saddening is that so few people are willing to do the work of research. One is accused of being a traitor, anti-American, liberal etc just for taking the time to do some checking of the facts. It is far more comfortable to sit back thinking everything is fine, drinking up the propaganda than to own up to the facts. 5 minutes at www.amazon.com looking at American foreign policy books or books on Bushs regime and you would come away with months if not years of reading material. There is so much material on this that it is scary. Is ignorance bliss? DAVEH: For most Yanks..yes. I suspect most Americans have little concern for foreign policy, though little disputes such as Iraq, Viet Nam, etc, tend to force a few to think about it a bit more. I think a lot of folks here simply tire of having to be the world's baby sitter (or perhaps cop would be better). IOW.If the USA adopted a stay home policy, do you think the rest of the world could function on its own without self destructing? I suspect a lot of Americans see it that way. I value Canada for its safety, health care system and education. The latest UN results for the best country to live in are at the following link - http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_12_1_1.html. DAVEH: Hm..That's interesting. Congratulations to Canada for scoring so high! Other than those evading the grasp of the law, do you find many Yanks emigrating to Canada due to the better life there? All of the tables can be reached here: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_indicators.cfm. DAVEH: I hope to spend a little more time reviewing this when I get more time. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you And DaveH I find it hard to see how a country who will not take the best care of you is a country looking out for you. DAVEH: Some of us believe the best way to take care of people is to teach them to be self sufficient, rather than be dependent on the government. I don't want to get into a big political debate on this, but am pointing out the philosophical differences in what I (as a conservative) may believe in regard to this, and how others more liberal may feel about it. IMHO, a country that really is looking out for us, is not a country that enslaves us to a welfare system. Those who become addicted to the teat of the welfare State have not been very well cared for, but rather have become subdued by those politicians who ofttimes trade their promises of government will provide your well being for political power. Once the curse of welfare becomes ingrained for generations, it robs future generations of freedom. Now don't get me wrong, Jonathan.I'm not saying that welfare should be abolished. I just think that a country that is truly looking out for us, would encourage us to escape the welfare sinkhole so that will will not need our country to take the best care of us. Yikes...get me off this danged soapbox! Sorry to bore you. Have
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I appreciate your admonishment. Perhaps I can explain why I asked. Before I discuss something as diverse as the Law I need to find out whom I am discussing it with. I need to know what their perspective of Law is. For instance, my perspective of Law is that the God of Creation is the author of such. He is unchanging. His Law is unchanging. I can see how it would be easy to assume that I was playing the game of answering a question with a question, so again, I appreciate your admonishment. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Tim:Just answer the Bishop's question. - Original Message - From: C. Tim Winkley To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 31, 2004 07:12 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? John In a message dated 8/30/2004 7:46:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, I have not been involved in name calling. Please identify where I have. I have exposed what I see your attitude as being: holier than thou. Read your own posts again. They drip with sarcasm and place you in a position above me. I have not asked you to read several books in this thread. I did mention that several (read hundreds) are available to DaveH. I have asked you to go to the archive and read up on how this has already been discussed. Why is this offensive to you? You have refused to read links provided before. Should I interpret it as laziness? Why do you want the most for the least? Your post below talks about how it is immoral to give false witness. This very day you circulate an email that is a blatant lie. You are made aware of this. You say, oh well I was tired. There is no apology to the group. We are left with the impression that you could care less if you lie about your 'enemy'. Do you really think 'it is moral to lie'? Your behaviour shows otherwise. I agree with the definition of 'moral' that you provided. I pointed out that you did not define moralism but rather just the root. You ignored this. I pointed out that you have added to this definition by placing it in the context of God. I pointed out that God is missing from the actual definition. In other words your definition proved what I was saying: God is absent from morals. There are not two categories of morals, God-centered and secular-based. They are all secular based. In Nazi Germany it was moral (i.e. it was not against their conscience and was considered good behaviour) to exterminate the Jews. Take your definition of moral again (I will include your patronizing comments): Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. Now please show me in this definition where God is. God is completely absent. Christianity is completely absent. It is a completely secular definition. Jonathan From: ShieldsFamily Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:30:44 -0700 Jonathan, Okay, at least here you are discussing instead of name calling or telling me to go read several books before you will talk. It seems that you believe in two kinds of morals (1) those that are God-based and (2) those that are secular-based. Do I have this right so far? Need I explain that I only believe in God-based morals. There are no other morals. All true morals are obedience to Gods Law, whether or not the person realizes that or not. If someone thinks it is moral to lie, then he is not a moral person. Lying is not moral no matter how much you believe it is. Why? Because Gods word says Do not bear false witness. Do you see my standard here? I do not believe there is a secular morality. When I speak of morality I am ONLY referring to God-based right vs wrong. A Satanist cannot be moral, but he can do moral acts, such as helping an old man across the street. Can you understand my viewpoint at all? Izzy Jonathan, Lets go back to square one in my post below. (1) Do you, or do you not, agree with the Dictionarys definition of moral? (2) Next, instead of name-calling, how about choosing one statement and telling me exactly why you disagree with it. Tell me exactly and precisely what statement I made below disturbs you. This is called intelligent discussion. It is also called humility. Try it; you might like it. Izzy 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 sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilgie. Si vous ntes pas le destinataire vis, s.v.p. en informer immdiatement son expditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dtruire toute copie (lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis est interdite et peut tre illgale. Merci de votre coopration relativement au message susmentionn.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, I have not been involved in name calling. Please identify where I have.Jonathan I am not going to go back over all the former posts to nit-pick. Perhaps I am confusing you with Lance. If so I apologize. I have exposed what I see your attitude as being: holier than thou. Read your own posts again. They drip with sarcasm and place you in a position above me. I take this as name-calling. You are assuming the worst of me instead of taking my words as face value. If you knew my heart you would know that there was not one shred of sarcasm in what I wrote. But you assume there is. Why is that? I was imploring you to understand and trying to find common ground for agreement. I have not asked you to read several books in this thread. I did mention that several (read hundreds) are available to DaveH.You have often responded by telling people who try to discuss issues to go read tomes of material. You often assume that because there are many books supporting a viewpoint that this implies validity to your argument. There are many books about Satanism and the occult. What does that prove? I have asked you to go to the archive and read up on how this has already been discussed. Why is this offensive to you? You have refused to read links provided before. Should I interpret it as laziness? Why do you want the most for the least? Pardon me for wanting to discuss it with you rather than review old discussions you have had with others. And when you provide links to lengthy websites my eyes glaze over. If I asked you to read tomes of Conservative literature, would you? Again you assume that I am lazy instead of assuming the best of me, or at least giving me the benefit of a doubt. Your post below talks about how it is immoral to give false witness. This very day you circulate an email that is a blatant lie. You are made aware of this. You say, oh well I was tired. There is no apology to the group. Please let me spell it out I AM VERY SORRY!! I APOLOGIZE VERY SINCERELY. We are left with the impression that you could care less if you lie about your 'enemy'. Do you really think 'it is moral to lie'? Do you really think that I intentionally composed and circulated a lie? A person walking in love would assume (correctly) that I was foolishly taken in by yet another urban legend, and at midnight was too sleepy to even think of that possiblility. Your behaviour shows otherwise. I agree with the definition of 'moral' that you provided. Thank you for saying so Thank you, thank you, thank you! I pointed out that you did not define moralism but rather just the root. You ignored this.I did not realize that I ignored that; I thought I addressed it, but you considered it sarcasm and holier than thou. How can you think that MORALISM is a different word than the practice of doing what is MORAL? ism suff. Action; process; practice: terrorism. Characteristic behavior or quality: heroism. State; condition; quality: pauperism. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism. Distinctive or characteristic trait: Latinism. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism. I pointed out that you have added to this definition by placing it in the context of God. I pointed out that God is missing from the actual definition. In other words your definition proved what I was saying: God is absent from morals. There are not two categories of morals, God-centered and secular-based. They are all secular based. In Nazi Germany it was moral (i.e. it was not against their conscience and was considered good behaviour) to exterminate the Jews.Perhaps my last post will help you understand my viewpoint: that morality is ONLY determined by Gods opinionnot mans. Take your definition of moral again (I will include your patronizing comments): They are not patronizingthey are letting you know that you are assuming I am the ignorant one, when I am only going by the standard English definition, Jonathan. Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: mor·al Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. Now please show me in this definition where God is. God is completely
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 8/31/2004 4:14:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? John Of course. Do you? And about my question? John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Yes, I consider myself a believer. Let me be specific. I was born under the penalty of sin. In other words my body will die and my desire was to disobey God. As a result of my yielding to my nature to disobey God, I found myself in bondage. I was hopelessly addicted to drugs for 19 years. I cried out to God when I reached the depth of my despair, He answered on His own time (which took about five months). At such a time He spoke to me and warned me that if I did not repent and return to Him I would soon die and be judged for my sin. I repented. I was born again. The moment I repented, my heart changed from desiring to disobey to wanting to please God as perfectly as I am able with His empowerment. My heart has remained in this state for the last 12 years. I have grown faithful and will continue to change until such a time as I leave this flesh. My anchor is Gods Word; the Bible. I find it to be truth. The Bible substantiates itself. When I need to understand the Bible, I find the answer in the Bible. I have studied a read the Bible just about every day since the day I repented and my heart was turned unto the LORD, as I find it to be the answer to the dilemma of changing me into the image that pleases my Father. To answer your question: The Ten Commandments, to start with. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 4:14:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? John Of course. Do you? And about my question? John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 8/31/2004 9:23:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, I consider myself a believer. Let me be specific. I was born under the penalty of sin. In other words my body will die and my desire was to disobey God. As a result of my yielding to my nature to disobey God, I found myself in bondage. I was hopelessly addicted to drugs for 19 years. I cried out to God when I reached the depth of my despair, He answered on His own time (which took about five months). At such a time He spoke to me and warned me that if I did not repent and return to Him I would soon die and be judged for my sin. I repented. I was born again. The moment I repented, my heart changed from desiring to disobey to wanting to please God as perfectly as I am able with His empowerment. My heart has remained in this state for the last 12 years. I have grown faithful and will continue to change until such a time as I leave this flesh. My anchor is Gods Word; the Bible. I find it to be truth. The Bible substantiates itself. When I need to understand the Bible, I find the answer in the Bible. I have studied a read the Bible just about every day since the day I repented and my heart was turned unto the LORD, as I find it to be the answer to the dilemma of changing me into the image that pleases my Father. To answer your question: The Ten Commandments, to start with. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man Thanks for the reply. I have asked this question is an earlier post (just a few minutes ago) but what is the difference, in your opinion, between the Old and New Covenants? Do you observe the Sabboth? John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Jonathan in some colour other than black, blue or red. Hmm I think I will use green. Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes JonathanSent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:13 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, I have not been involved in name calling. Please identify where I have.Jonathan I am not going to go back over all the former posts to nit-pick. Perhaps I am confusing you with Lance. If so I apologize.Thank you. I have exposed what I see your attitude as being: holier than thou. Read your own posts again. They drip with sarcasm and place you in a position above me. I take this as name-calling. You are assuming the worst of me instead of taking my words as face value. If you knew my heart you would know that there was not one shred of sarcasm in what I wrote. But you assume there is. Why is that? I was imploring you to understand and trying to find common ground for agreement.Izzy, you implore with sarcasm. For example, "Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following:", "Dearest Jonathan", "This is called intelligent discussion. It is also called humility. Try it; you might like it. " If you cannot see the sarcasm involved in your own words here than not only are you blind but you are being dishonest. Own up to your words. You say that you are trying to find common ground and in a way you are; however you tack onto it comments like the above which illustrate a different heart. I have not asked you to read several books in this thread. I did mention that several (read hundreds) are available to DaveH.You have often responded by telling people who try to discuss issues to go read tomes of material. You often assume that because there are many books supporting a viewpoint that this implies validity to your argument. There are many books about Satanism and the occult. What does that prove?It proves that Satan is alive and welland that many people practice the occult arts. No where have I expoused that many books = being correct. What I do expouse is that all sides of an equation need to be looked at. If there is material on that side of the equation we are beingintellectually dishonest by not addressing it, especially if it is so prevalent. I have asked you to go to the archive and read up on how this has already been discussed. Why is this offensive to you? You have refused to read links provided before. Should I interpret it as laziness? Why do you want the most for the least? Pardon me for wanting to discuss it with you rather than review old discussions you have had with others.The discussion I had was with you on this exact topic. The link is www.mail-archive.com. Type in Truthtalk. And when you provide links to lengthy websites my eyes glaze over. If I asked you to read tomes of Conservative literature, would you?Yes I would. In fact you would be surprised regarding the scope of my reading and the conservative literature that I have read and own. I am not against the conservatives. I hold no party affiliation. I am for the truth on both sides. No party has a monopoly on truth. Again you assume that I am lazy instead of assuming the best of me, or at least giving me the benefit of a doubt.I didn't assume you were lazy; rather,I asked, should this be my proper response? I have done exactly the opposite that you claim. Instead of just assuming I asked you to clarify as it seemed to be the only option. I am still trying to determine why youresist educating yourself on the facts. If it isn't laziness then what is it that holds you back from learning? Your post below talks about how it is immoral to give false witness. This very day you circulate an email that is a blatant lie. You are made aware of this. You say, oh well I was tired. There is no apology to the group. Please let me spell it out I AM VERY SORRY!! I APOLOGIZE VERY SINCERELY. We are left with the impression that you could care less if you lie about your 'enemy'. Do you really think 'it is moral to lie'? Do you really think that I intentionally composed and circulated a lie? A person walking in love would assume (correctly) that I was foolishly taken in by yet another urban legend, and at midnight was too sleepy to even think of that possiblility.Izzy you have used such propaganda to support your own political views before (remember the picture of Clinton and the toilet paper?) To assume that you are doing it againdoes not involve me stretching too far. Your comments continually discredit the 'other' p
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Thank you for sharing your testimony Tim, it is a wonderful testimony to God's power and grace in your life. judyt On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:19:25 -0500 "C. Tim Winkley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, I consider myself a believer. Let me be specific. I was born under the penalty of sin. In other words my body will die and my desire was to disobey God. As a result of my yielding to my nature to disobey God, I found myself in bondage. I was hopelessly addicted to drugs for 19 years. I cried out to God when I reached the depth of my despair, He answered on His own time (which took about five months). At such a time He spoke to me and warned me that if I did not repent and return to Him I would soon die and be judged for my sin. I repented. I was born again. The moment I repented, my heart changed from desiring to disobey to wanting to please God as perfectly as I am able with His empowerment. My heart has remained in this state for the last 12 years. I have grown faithful and will continue to change until such a time as I leave this flesh. My anchor is Gods Word; the Bible. I find it to be truth. The Bible substantiates itself. When I need to understand the Bible, I find the answer in the Bible. I have studied a read the Bible just about every day since the day I repented and my heart was turned unto the LORD, as I find it to be the answer to the dilemma of changing me into the image that pleases my Father. To answer your question: The Ten Commandments, to start with. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:01 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 4:14:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you consider yourself a believer? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you What is this law that needs to be restored in the congregation of believers? John Of course. Do you? And about my question?John
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Lance, Just when we are getting down to specifics you want us to abandon the conversation? Please dont encourage that. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Iz:This conversation is beyond saving. Why not assume that Jonathan is wrong and move on to something else? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 31, 2004 11:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy in blue: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, I have not been involved in name calling. Please identify where I have.Jonathan I am not going to go back over all the former posts to nit-pick. Perhaps I am confusing you with Lance. If so I apologize. I have exposed what I see your attitude as being: holier than thou. Read your own posts again. They drip with sarcasm and place you in a position above me. I take this as name-calling. You are assuming the worst of me instead of taking my words as face value. If you knew my heart you would know that there was not one shred of sarcasm in what I wrote. But you assume there is. Why is that? I was imploring you to understand and trying to find common ground for agreement. I have not asked you to read several books in this thread. I did mention that several (read hundreds) are available to DaveH.You have often responded by telling people who try to discuss issues to go read tomes of material. You often assume that because there are many books supporting a viewpoint that this implies validity to your argument. There are many books about Satanism and the occult. What does that prove? I have asked you to go to the archive and read up on how this has already been discussed. Why is this offensive to you? You have refused to read links provided before. Should I interpret it as laziness? Why do you want the most for the least? Pardon me for wanting to discuss it with you rather than review old discussions you have had with others. And when you provide links to lengthy websites my eyes glaze over. If I asked you to read tomes of Conservative literature, would you? Again you assume that I am lazy instead of assuming the best of me, or at least giving me the benefit of a doubt. Your post below talks about how it is immoral to give false witness. This very day you circulate an email that is a blatant lie. You are made aware of this. You say, oh well I was tired. There is no apology to the group. Please let me spell it out I AM VERY SORRY!! I APOLOGIZE VERY SINCERELY. We are left with the impression that you could care less if you lie about your 'enemy'. Do you really think 'it is moral to lie'? Do you really think that I intentionally composed and circulated a lie? A person walking in love would assume (correctly) that I was foolishly taken in by yet another urban legend, and at midnight was too sleepy to even think of that possiblility. Your behaviour shows otherwise. I agree with the definition of 'moral' that you provided. Thank you for saying so Thank you, thank you, thank you! I pointed out that you did not define moralism but rather just the root. You ignored this.I did not realize that I ignored that; I thought I addressed it, but you considered it sarcasm and holier than thou. How can you think that MORALISM is a different word than the practice of doing what is MORAL? ism suff. Action; process; practice: terrorism. Characteristic behavior or quality: heroism. State; condition; quality: pauperism. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism. Distinctive or characteristic trait: Latinism. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism. I pointed out that you have added to this definition by placing it in the context of God. I pointed out that God is missing from the actual definition. In other words your definition proved what I was saying: God is absent from morals. There are not two categories of morals, God-centered and secular-based. They are all secular based. In Nazi Germany it was moral (i.e. it was not against their conscience and was considered good behaviour) to exterminate the Jews.Perhaps my last post will help you understand my viewpoint: that morality is ONLY determined by Gods opinionnot mans. Take your definition of moral again (I will include your patronizing comments): They are not patronizingthey are letting you know that you are assuming I am the ignorant one, when I am only going by the standard English definition, Jonathan. Perhaps you know
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy in bold: Okay Jonathan, this conversation is getting unwieldy, so I will cut to the main point here below: You and I, as Believers in the Living God, should be capable of agreeing between us that only God can and does determine what is truly right and wrong. I deny this is to deny Him. That is my point. If we cannot agree on that, then we cannot agree on anything. Izzy Perhaps my last post will help you understand my viewpoint: that morality is ONLY determined by Gods opinionnot mans.I believe this to be incorrect. Once again, morals are a result of social pressure. I have given you examples. Remember the definition does not include God or what He desires. It is man-made humanism. It is good behaviour that can be based upon anything at all (including the Bible, Islamic resources, witchcraft etc.) Take your definition of moral again (I will include your patronizing comments): They are not patronizingthey are letting you know that you are assuming I am the ignorant one, when I am only going by the standard English definition, Jonathan. I wish you would goby the standard English definition. I beg you! It is staring you in the face. It is a completely secular definition that you insist has to be re-written with God in mind. It does not. Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: mor·al Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. Now please show me in this definition where God is. God is completely absent. Christianity is completely absent. It is a completely secular definition. Thank you for the invitation. I will be happy to do that. Take the Dictionary definition above. (highlighted in red for you.) Now, where do you see Gods absence from what is good, correct in character and behavior, doing what is right and virtuous, and having a good conscience according to Gods standards The correct question Izzy, is where do you see 'God's standards' in the definition above? You have read them into the text. They are not there. You see words like good, correct, character and behaviour and automatically assume that we are talking about God's standards. You are being dishonest although I do not think you are doing it on purpose.? Do you not see Jesus in that? If not, I am truly perplexed. Please do not discourage me by coming back with insulting comments or assumptions of evil on my part.Assumptions of evil? Now that is just being dramatic. I have no desire to discourage. Talking with you about political matters (and those that are closely aligned) is always a difficult and frustrating task. You are so committed to your ideology that to think outside the box appears to be a rather painful process. I understand this as I went through the process myself. It requires a lot of work and careful attention but it has been worth it. Please just address the statements I made and tell me where you think I am in error.I hope I have done this.That would be loving me. I am trying to love you by understanding you. If this is too much trouble for you, just say so, but dont just get mad and go away, please. Izzy Jonathan 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 sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
John, I am sorry, you have used two terms I am not familiar with. Old Law New Law Are you saying that these terms are Biblical? If so, please submit a reference. Maybe you are talking about covenants. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Hi Judy, Welcome to the fray. To answer your first question, unequivocally I consider myself to be able to judge (used in the sense of discernment, not in the sense of putting myself in a position above the other) the foreign policy and its inventors in America. I certainly believe that God calls us to justice andnot only that but that He loves justice. As His follower I abide by that. Do you believe abortion is wrong Judy? There we go. We both agree that we should fight injustice. Hide behind 'do not judge' verses but people are dying. You are correct in saying that the UN is a political organization. They have been doing this survey for years. Canada has topped the list at least 4 times in the last 10 years but has recently fallen to 4th. Terrorism should be solved by ideology not by violence. Your lack of knowledge regarding such figures as Pol Pot is agonizing to me. You are aware that the US was in complete support of Pol Pot for years? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot) You realize that Saddam was a best friend to the States prior to the invasion of Kuwait? You realize thatUS support was during their horrors they perpetuated on their own citizens? You realize that the United States was convicted of Terrorism by the World Court for its war in Nicaragua (http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?action="">)? You realize that at least 10 children have died in Iraq due to the sanctions put in place by the US through the UN since 1992 (this figure is probably closer to 30). There are tonnes of links out there for you to google on this one. These are children and babies Judy. The real issue here is: DO YOU CARE? There is such a lack of education among you and Izzy regarding what the US has done and when it did it. Instead you want to concentrate on the good that the US has done. It is such a silly argument that I never want to have to tell God I was involved in it. "Why, yes God I know we were involved in killing tonnes of innocent people, but look at the ones we helped. Doesn't it even out just a little?" When I was young and got in trouble for doing something I didn't say to my mother, "But mom, I did make my bed today". You see I am expected to make my bed, to do good and help others. This is never the issue. The issue is the mass amount of injustice in our world today. Show me a pure-bred conservative and I will show you someone who is NOT involved in social activism, nor even cares. Harsh I know but that is how I feel. Prove me wrong. Jonathan Hughes -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:05 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:08 -0400 "Jonathan Hughes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not believe I have misquoted OReilly. His point was that there are other countries out there that will look out for you/take care of you (synonymous) more than the American government. Much of the book is dedicated to illustrate that this is true. His next point is that America is still the best place to live even though the first point is true. A lot of that reasoning is dealt with by you below. Basically it rests on the word autonomy which I do not believe to be a Christian concept. Since the garden humankind has pursued autonomy instead of community under God. I believe it will be the Western worlds downfall. For the record I think America is a great country. My issues with the United States are rarely domestic. My issues with America almost always revolve around their foreign policy since WW2. I hold them responsible for a massive amount of death around the world. This is easily proven by just a small amount of research. What I find saddening is that so few people are willing to do the work of research. One is accused of being a traitor, anti-American, liberal etc just for taking the time to do some checking of the facts. It is far more comfortable to sit back thinking everything is fine, drinking up the propaganda than to own up to the facts. 5 minutes at www.amazon.com looking at American foreign policy books or books on Bushs regime and you would come away with months if not years of reading material. There is so much material on this that it is scary. Is ignorance bliss? I value Canada for its safety, health care system and education. The latest UN results for the best country to live in are at the following link - http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_12_1_1.html. All of the tables can be reached here: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/index_indicators.cfm. Jonathan Jonathan Lance, I'd like to address theassumptions I see in your emails constantly ... I'm sure that if I inquired you would both tell me
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
I am sorry in the last message you used the term Law, I understand covenant as used in this email. The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for? When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW. You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Do you keep the Law? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 9:23:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, I consider myself a believer. Let me be specific. I was born under the penalty of sin. In other words my body will die and my desire was to disobey God. As a result of my yielding to my nature to disobey God, I found myself in bondage. I was hopelessly addicted to drugs for 19 years. I cried out to God when I reached the depth of my despair, He answered on His own time (which took about five months). At such a time He spoke to me and warned me that if I did not repent and return to Him I would soon die and be judged for my sin. I repented. I was born again. The moment I repented, my heart changed from desiring to disobey to wanting to please God as perfectly as I am able with His empowerment. My heart has remained in this state for the last 12 years. I have grown faithful and will continue to change until such a time as I leave this flesh. My anchor is Gods Word; the Bible. I find it to be truth. The Bible substantiates itself. When I need to understand the Bible, I find the answer in the Bible. I have studied a read the Bible just about every day since the day I repented and my heart was turned unto the LORD, as I find it to be the answer to the dilemma of changing me into the image that pleases my Father. To answer your question: The Ten Commandments, to start with. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man Thanks for the reply. I have asked this question is an earlier post (just a few minutes ago) but what is the difference, in your opinion, between the Old and New Covenants? Do you observe the Sabboth? John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:21:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I am sorry, you have used two terms I am not familiar with. Old Law New Law Are you saying that these terms are Biblical? If so, please submit a reference. Maybe you are talking about covenants. By inference - Rom 3:27. Gal 5:14 - 6:2 especially v 5:14 and v 6:2 Heb 10 contrasting the "Old" law and the New (or, another) Covenant. Brother John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 8/31/2004 12:28:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sorry in the last message you used the term Law, I understand covenant as used in this email. The woman I sleep with most nights is both a wife and a mother. Two very different things. Same woman. The short answer: There were nine covenants. Which one were you specifically asking for? Everybody has a niche. When you use the term Old Covenant it typically refers to the covenant the LORD made with the house of Israel after he brought them out of the land of Egypt. It established the Levitical Priesthood and system of animal sacrifices. The New covenant (Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc) established that the Law would be written in their hearts and on their minds. This paragraph may come back to haunt you. Time will tell. Right now, I agree with your thought, above, in a general sense. I think we should be very careful about not interchanging the word Law with the word covenant. They are not the same. The Law addresses all the covenants; which incidentally are part of the LAW. Your are getting close to this "interchange" in the preceding paragraph. Tim -- are you trying to win the discussion or have a discussion. If it is about winning, hey, I think I can do that but to what avail.? Try to imagine that someone (me) who has been around for a while, would see a difference between "law" and "covenant." You asked if I observed the Sabbath. I sincerely appreciate the way you phrased that question. The commandment states that we are to remember the Sabbath. To say I keep Sabbath is indicating that Sabbaths keeping is within my power. The Mother of Harlots re-wrote that command saying Keep the Sabbath Holy. LOL. I love rudeness. I just have to shake my head and laugh. To answer your question, I observe the Sabbath, remembering that God made it Holy. Thanks for trying to figure out what I was asking. Do you keep the Law? As defined in terms of faith (conviction), love and the Spirit -- absolutely. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Brother John, Galatians 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself Leviticus 19:18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Wouldnt you agree that there wasnt much change over the thousands of years between those two verses? Galatians 6:2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ Exodus 23:5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Not much change in that one either. What gave you the idea that I was trying to win an argument? I contend that the Law hasnt changed. What is your position? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:21:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I am sorry, you have used two terms I am not familiar with. Old Law New Law Are you saying that these terms are Biblical? If so, please submit a reference. Maybe you are talking about covenants. By inference - Rom 3:27. Gal 5:14 - 6:2 especially v 5:14 and v 6:2 Heb 10 contrasting the Old law and the New (or, another) Covenant. Brother John
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
C. Tim Winkley wrote: Brother John, Galatians 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself Leviticus 19:18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Wouldnt you agree that there wasnt much change over the thousands of years between those two verses? Galatians 6:2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ Exodus 23:5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Not much change in that one either. What gave you the idea that I was trying to win an argument? I contend that the Law hasnt changed. What is your position? C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man == Let me intrude a moment C. Tim. While the comparisons you quote are valid, those under the law were not required to love their enemy. Followers of Christ do not have that luxury. Would you consider that a change? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Tim, did I miss your comment on my response post, giving you the scriptural references you requested : In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:21:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, I am sorry, you have used two terms I am not familiar with. Old Law New Law Are you saying that these terms are Biblical? If so, please submit a reference. Maybe you are talking about covenants. By inference - Rom 3:27. Gal 5:14 - 6:2 especially v 5:14 and v 6:2 Heb 10 contrasting the "Old" law and the New (or, another) Covenant. Brother John Tim's new post : In a message dated 8/31/2004 6:48:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brother John, Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Wouldnt you agree that there wasnt much change over the thousands of years between those two verses? Yes. Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ Exodus 23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Not much change in that one either Correct. Love and outpouring have always been THE path to God -- Is 58:9-11. What gave you the idea that I was trying to win an argument? No reason. I contend that the Law hasnt changed. What is your position? Of course it has. And you believe that as well, unless you are still butchering bulls and goats out in your backyard. The law by which we are judged is no longer a code of conduct, written in stone or in some way codified. Rather we are judged in view of an inwardness that gives us a relationship with God, knowingly or not; that says "yes" to the faith of Christ and His sacrifice providing our gracious redemption. It is apart from our obedience to the Law and is based upon a shared experience with the Faith of Jesus Christ. I am saved by faith because I share in His faith. It is not about commandment keeping or a degree of holiness. It is about God's gracious intervention -- His decision to receive his prodical and adoptive family back into his arms -- no questions asked. Just like I would receive any of my children. The issue is not whether they (the children) are doing the right thing out there in the world but whether or not they want to come home. And home is a great place to be, Tim. So there you go -- you now have something to shoot at. I'll seek cover and wait for your response. a brother, Reverend Smithson (Right Reverend -- yeah -- I like that ). The Right (on) Reverend Smithson C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Terry, Perhaps you should read the verse again. Who else would your enemy be other than someone who hateth thee? Exodus 23:5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. C. Tim Winkley Aka Law Man
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Glad to hear it, Tim. We couldnt agree more on that. How do you propose we turn our nation from sin today? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of C. Tim Winkley Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, For the record, I am a reformed dependent (on parents, government, system, etc). I look to the LORD for his provision. The beauty of our society is that we are able to express Gods success. He does provide through our hard work, individualistic natures and at times, miraculously. We are in the best country in the world. We currently have a good leader (not perfect). To answer your question, I market socially responsible telecommunications products including, local dial tone, long distance, Internet, cell service etc We use portions of the proceeds to support Christian and conservative causes. In Your Service, C. Tim Winkley Affinity Resource Marketing 870 869 1330 (voice) 775 719 4084 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Jonathan, Do you really want big government taking care of you? Americans dont want to trade freedom to get dependency on big (tax eating, godless, bureaucratic ) government telling them what they need and how to live. Thats why we are still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It takes courage (and intelligence) to take care of your own family and yourself. (We have welfare for those who opt-out.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 6:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you I find O'Reilly very interesting and dare I say it, enjoyable. I listened to the unabridged audio version of Who's looking out for You the other week and was impressed. It was pure moralism, but for moralism it was great. His take on Canada is interesting. He believes (as he should) that America is the best place in the world to live. However, he believes other countries 'look out for you' more than the States will. Hence, the massive reliance on individuals/autonomy that O'Reilly's moralism fosters. Here is the entire quote on Canada: I'M GOING TO wrap up this chapter with some looking out for you profiles of government figures, but before I do that, one final word on our political system. After visiting fifty-eight nations, I still think America is the best country in the world. We have more options and more freedom to pursue happiness than people anywhere else on earth. On the other hand, almost every other industrialized country will take better care of you. Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and Britain all have elaborate entitlements for their citizens, and even for illegal immigrants who manage to get into those countries. But the entitlements come with a steep price tag: Most people in those countries will never become wealthy and independent. And most can't even choose their medical and educational providers. Taxes are huge, and so are the waiting lists for medical treatment and decent housing. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129979,00.html A little message about the Olympics from Bill O'Reilley. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
My favourite quote from OReillys Whos Looking out for You: Finally, the war in Iraq proves once again that ideologues can never look out for you. They are too blinded by the light on the right or the left and they will never see things for what they really are. If you become an ideological prisoner, the truth will always elude you because you will never seek it. Instead, you'll evaluate each issue and problem with an agenda: trying to prove your ideology is correct. The antidote to this is to reject a rigid political philosophy and discipline yourself to think logically. Gather facts. Facts always look out for you. And that's a fact. So often on TruthTalk people get caught up in their ideological prisons unable to see the truth. Good stuff. A great message to all of us, myself included. And DaveH I find it hard to see how a country who will not take the best care of you is a country looking out for you. Have you read O'Reilly's book? Much of it is how the country and the institutions that inhabit it are not taking care of/looking out for you. O'Reilly's opinion that America is the best country in the world is due to two things that he repeatedly mentions: opportunity and the ability to make money. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Jonathan Hughes wrote: I find O'Reilly very interesting and dare I say it, enjoyable. I listened to the unabridged audio version of Who's looking out for You the other week and was impressed. It was pure moralism, but for moralism it was great. His take on Canada is interesting. He believes (as he should) that America is the best place in the world to live. However, he believes other countries 'look out for you' DAVEH: That's not what he said, Jonathan. He believes other countries will take better care of you as opposed to look out for you. There is a big difference. more than the States will. Hence, the massive reliance on individuals/autonomy that O'Reilly's moralism fosters. Here is the entire quote on Canada: I'M GOING TO wrap up this chapter with some looking out for you profiles of government figures, but before I do that, one final word on our political system. After visiting fifty-eight nations, I still think America is the best country in the world. We have more options and more freedom to pursue happiness than people anywhere else on earth. On the other hand, almost every other industrialized country will take better care of you. Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and Britain all have elaborate entitlements for their citizens, and even for illegal immigrants who manage to get into those countries. But the entitlements come with a steep price tag: Most people in those countries will never become wealthy and independent. And most can't even choose their medical and educational providers. Taxes are huge, and so are the waiting lists for medical treatment and decent housing. Jonathan -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] from O'Reilley to you
Jonathan, I'm so glad I'm not an ideologue! The minute the Democrat party represents the things I believe in, I'll be happy to vote for it. :-) Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you My favourite quote from OReillys Whos Looking out for You: Finally, the war in Iraq proves once again that ideologues can never look out for you. They are too blinded by the light on the right or the left and they will never see things for what they really are. If you become an ideological prisoner, the truth will always elude you because you will never seek it. Instead, you'll evaluate each issue and problem with an agenda: trying to prove your ideology is correct. The antidote to this is to reject a rigid political philosophy and discipline yourself to think logically. Gather facts. Facts always look out for you. And that's a fact. So often on TruthTalk people get caught up in their ideological prisons unable to see the truth. Good stuff. A great message to all of us, myself included. And DaveH I find it hard to see how a country who will not take the best care of you is a country looking out for you. Have you read O'Reilly's book? Much of it is how the country and the institutions that inhabit it are not taking care of/looking out for you. O'Reilly's opinion that America is the best country in the world is due to two things that he repeatedly mentions: opportunity and the ability to make money. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Jonathan Hughes wrote: I find O'Reilly very interesting and dare I say it, enjoyable. I listened to the unabridged audio version of Who's looking out for You the other week and was impressed. It was pure moralism, but for moralism it was great. His take on Canada is interesting. He believes (as he should) that America is the best place in the world to live. However, he believes other countries 'look out for you' DAVEH: That's not what he said, Jonathan. He believes other countries will take better care of you as opposed to look out for you. There is a big difference. more than the States will. Hence, the massive reliance on individuals/autonomy that O'Reilly's moralism fosters. Here is the entire quote on Canada: I'M GOING TO wrap up this chapter with some looking out for you profiles of government figures, but before I do that, one final word on our political system. After visiting fifty-eight nations, I still think America is the best country in the world. We have more options and more freedom to pursue happiness than people anywhere else on earth. On the other hand, almost every other industrialized country will take better care of you. Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and Britain all have elaborate entitlements for their citizens, and even for illegal immigrants who manage to get into those countries. But the entitlements come with a steep price tag: Most people in those countries will never become wealthy and independent. And most can't even choose their medical and educational providers. Taxes are huge, and so are the waiting lists for medical treatment and decent housing. Jonathan -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- 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] from O'Reilley to you
Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Johnathan, Once and for all will you please define for me your definition of moralism and tell me what you and Lance have against it? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 6:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you I find O'Reilly very interesting and dare I say it, enjoyable. I listened to the unabridged audio version of Who's looking out for You the other week and was impressed. It was pure moralism, but for moralism it was great.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
God is going to do that. Unfortunately, considering the culture has fallen and with the church apostasy ripening as foretold we can look forward to major disaster coming our way. If we study the Biblical pattern, for nations that God blessed, and then turned away we will find that a good crushing brought them to repentance. Dont get me wrong; I believe that we should be as active in our communities as possible. One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers. I visit jails and hand out homemade tracts (it is not a big blown out ministry but it is what I can do locally), God will honor our efforts and take note of our busyness. Trust me, we want God to notice our works in these last days. What are your suggestions? Tim
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Izzy, As I perceive you, you are perhaps the biggest ideologue on this forum (in a political sense - others are ideologues in a theology sense). From appearances you are for a one party system desiring to throw democracy out the window. You seem to be unable to perceive any 'right' in the 'left'. You demonize the left while ignoring the many (and well documented) sins of the right. Read the quote again. Note Bill's carefully chosen words of being blinded 'by the light on the right or the left'. Note why Bill also dislikes being called a Conservative (I could give you lots of examples of him expressing this if you wish - I have all of his books). He attempts (not always successfully in my opinion but at least he attempts it) to view his world not through a political view but through a moral view. This is why while he favours Bush over Clinton he still has many criticisms for/of Bush and his party. He is one step ahead of you. I will quote the last portion again as I feel it is extremely important: The antidote to this is to reject a rigid political philosophy and discipline yourself to think logically. Gather facts. Facts always look out for you. And that's a fact. I challenge you to go and read the facts. Study the left and the right. Do it logically. Think through an issue without labeling it left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Find out why half (or more if I go by the current polls) of the country disagrees with you and why almost the entire world outside of America disagrees with you. The answers are not difficult to find and they are almost always regarding moral issues. Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Jonathan, I'm so glad I'm not an ideologue! The minute the Democrat party represents the things I believe in, I'll be happy to vote for it. :-) Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you My favourite quote from O'Reilly's Who's Looking out for You: Finally, the war in Iraq proves once again that ideologues can never look out for you. They are too blinded by the light on the right or the left and they will never see things for what they really are. If you become an ideological prisoner, the truth will always elude you because you will never seek it. Instead, you'll evaluate each issue and problem with an agenda: trying to prove your ideology is correct. The antidote to this is to reject a rigid political philosophy and discipline yourself to think logically. Gather facts. Facts always look out for you. And that's a fact. So often on TruthTalk people get caught up in their ideological prisons unable to see the truth. Good stuff. A great message to all of us, myself included. And DaveH I find it hard to see how a country who will not take the best care of you is a country looking out for you. Have you read O'Reilly's book? Much of it is how the country and the institutions that inhabit it are not taking care of/looking out for you. O'Reilly's opinion that America is the best country in the world is due to two things that he repeatedly mentions: opportunity and the ability to make money. Jonathan -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers. DAVEH: ??? Can you please elaborate a little more on that, Tim? Are you suggesting Gods Law has been lost and needs to be restored? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
No, Gods Law in and of itself cannot be lost. I said, it has lost its place in the congregation of believers. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you C. Tim Winkley wrote: One thing is to restore Gods Law back to its original place in the congregation of believers.
RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you Izzy, we have had this conversation a number of times. The latest is from a thread entitled Moralism versus Christianity. Please look it up in the archives. In brief summation moralism is just good behaviour as defined by the society that you live in. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. This is why a Muslim and a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea can be moral. They do not go against their conscience in their behaviour. It does not involve a relationship with our Creator. What moralism needs is to be made subject to Jesus Christ. There is one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ, not moral behavoiur. Moralism stands in the way of you and I being able to illustrate to our neighbours the reality of their salvation. A moral person out of touch with his Creator does not need salvation. Why, they are already good. Moralism needs to be pointed out as deficient, a path that on the surface looks good but in reality is damning. Once submitted to the Triune God things change rapidly. Jonathan Dearest Jonathan, Perhaps you know better what the word moral means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following: moral Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. You seem to assume that all morals are based upon secular/cultural agencies. Why would you, a Believer, make such an assumption? We are people of the Word, and our values are Gods values, and our morals are based upon such. The conscience of a Believer is not seared or secularit is Holy Spirit infused. A moral Believer is never out of touch with his Creator. The fact that you dispute this appalls me. As for non-believers, would you rather they have no basis of right and wrong? Do you think God judges them for their behavior? Would you rather they sin more or less? Do you think that the Hindu woman who gave half of her food to her neighbor was wrong to do the moral thing? Why would anyone be against moral behavior? It is not difficult to convince a moral non-Believer that he is a sinner. It is impossible to convince a non-believer who has no conscience at all that he is a sinner. It was a moral man who prayed, God help me, a sinner. It was an immoral man who said proudly, I am glad I am not a sinner like the rest. Which are you? Izzy
