]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:28:53 -0800
*/_ What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are
offended by the likes of you waving
Cain wasn't an Israelite
either; he was just a man with a propensity toward sin and no heart for
God
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DaveH ain't
Cain, Bro--neither is he an Israelite
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17 -0800
Good point Another similarity btween Cain DH One was and one is Present tense indicitave of BEING LOST!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Cain wasn't an Israelite either; he was just a man with a propensity toward sin and no heart for GodOn Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700
on the list*...lets deal with your bad behavior first...*there
will be plenty of time for you to divert the focus to others later.*
Perry
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date
What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggesteddon't you think you owe them an apology? May I quote you? DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just
[Original Message]
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Date: 11/25/2005 7:32:45 PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
cd: The local people in the Blue Ridge Mountains
[TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800
*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *
DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.But, as I'm sure you
already
know.it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the
thought and
con
Your Filthy garments are Rejected by God, just as your righteousness is, they areNOTHING but FILTHY RAGS!Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. DAVEH: I just thought you would
again, toward
Wisdom, Bro: That they're rejected by God is a compound problem for DaveH--its
bound toinitiatecertain disturbing psychological ramifications, too;
however, that you totally reject him in this context is neither part of
the Gospel message nor the desire of its Creator (E.g.,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:14:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
(E.g.,
re-read Matt 11 and examine Hishea[r]t-felt
wrathless emotions there, too, partic as hezeroed inon the
Cross)
||
is bedroom if it is done in jest.
Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A
totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
From: Dave
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Dav
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. Gen 35 Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: again, toward Wisdom, Bro: That they're rejected by God is a
:)
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:22:22 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:14:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
.. partic
as {H]ezeroed inon the
Cross)
||
DaveH ain't Cain,
Bro--neither is he an Israelite
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he
had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance
fell.
Gen 35 Put away the
strange gods
KJ(V), et.
al.,cooked up some strange English--eh? Like repctfully/innocently
givin' the (false)impression that JC ain't
even human or
something(?)
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:40:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:)
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:22:22 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..and he made Bob
Dylan a leather jacket, i heard--that's a positive comment on the subject of
'garments'--eh? what's wrong with that??:)
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DaveH ain't Cain,
Bro--neither is he an Israelite
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:31:17
Neither are you a Jew. 10 CMDS gone cause it was written to the Jews OT Gone since it was written to Jews! What a convenient theology.Except for one problem. ALL scripture is given by God and is Profitable for Doctrine, for correction, for instruction DH may not be Cain but he offers the
Put away the strange gods![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:..and he made Bob Dylan a leather jacket, i heard--that's a positive comment on the subject of 'garments'--eh? what's wrong with that??:)On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:DaveH ain't Cain, Bro--neither is
: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:28:53 -0800
*/_ What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by
the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. _/*
DAVEH: I just thought you would want to take Perry's advice
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:29:49 -0800
DAVEH: May I assume your answer means Perry did not analyze you
correctly, and that you will not be apologizing to those you offend, Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
*Your
while (e.g.) its
true that Euro/non-jews 'profit' immensely from scripture/s, somelikely
'profit'way more thanjust you (so- called Wesleyans)do because
the Scripture/s of theHS is avast economic treasure in this sense--a
much largeruntariffed province to 'profit' fromthan youalone
.. * isn't history suggestg that even Wesley himself could see that
such biblical 'profit' is 'ours' (meaning, ftr, that it is not
necessarily, e.g., DaveHs yet, but it could be through the
HS;thatit accrues supernaturally to the NT church through
the Sp of God himself) partic where
and, ftr,one
ain't required to be a liberal to notice this genuine liberality of
Godwhileone's got the eyes to see it, ears to hear
it
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:34:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
.. * isn't history suggestg that even Wesley himself could see that
such biblical
And I
apologize to all, especially to
DaveH for provoking him.
DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.But, as I'm sure you
already know.it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the
thought and consideration is most appreciated.) I had taken
absolutely no offense at all in
A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800
*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH
Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault? Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor
Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers fault? Maybe DH was angry. Of course he equates SP in front of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with his off color Humor
]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800
*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *
DAVEH: Thank you for your apology
about his bedroom if it is done in jest.
Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A
totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
From: Dave
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Fri
e the beam protruding from thy eye, Perry.Charles Perry Locke wrote: A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion. From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy Date: Fri, 25 N
if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out. The State of Utah would see it this way too. On the other hand LDS who assault SP's because they are offended go to jail.
Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A
totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
From: Dave
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800
*And I apologize to all
32 matches
Mail list logo
