Re: [TruthTalk] View of REALITY

Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:46:59 -0800

Your DOGMA just ran over my CARma man....
 
LOL
It is self refuting? You might as well say reality is self refuting.
you might as well walk/not walk on a local highway.
( IMO )  ; )


Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The so-called law of non-contradiction is, on occasion, self-refuting. Boy, are you out of touch! Bet it makes you feel smart though. Why not use it with the Pagans? Just make sure that you don't choose a Pagan with an education.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 09, 2006 08:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM*************

I will speak with great plainess of speech for ya
You SELF-REFUTE in your philosophy/statements
 
What shall we do with the Law of NON CONTRADICTION?
Banish it to America?

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I reall do hope that when you 'ranters' rant that you speak with greater clarity than that which you exhibit on TT. Otherwise.....
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 09, 2006 08:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM*************

IMO?
 
Your opinion is your opinion that Real Truth is unknowable, does that extend to your opinions?
OTOH Your opionion is that your opinions should be accepted EX CATHEDRA.

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NO, NO, NO! YOUR TRUTH, DEAN, is perceived by YOU absent any ad hom component. I'm with DH on this one as it (YOUR TRUTH - NOT ALWAYS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE TRUTH) is intrinsically ad hom. (IMO of course) 
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Moore
Sent: March 09, 2006 06:30
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM*************

 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/9/2006 3:08:05 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - ModeratorcommentADHOM*************

Are you implying Dean called you such NAMES?

DAVEH:    I'll let Judge Dean answer that, Kevin..........I say/demand again " Get the "Church of Jesus Christ" name off your temple Pagan!!!
 
cd: Hey- that is Judge Moore to you buddy. You are the one that put a separation between Christianity and Mormonism-in you comment -and when I declare that by doing so this is Paganism you state crying .
My Comment:
Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
Your reply:
So let me ask you, Dean......Is it the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?
I called you a Mormon-to which you do not deny-You called me a Christian to wit I did not deny. By doing so you separated the two-and as receiving the first (Mormon) and tagging me with the second(Christian) you have clearly showed yourself to be non Christian-To be non-Christian is to be a Pagan. You DaveH are a Pagan.The fact that you do not follow the teaching of Jesus Christ is a deeper conformation of that point.
 
 Get over it the truth is not an Ad. Homein attack- or state a petition to impeach me.I am not Judge Dean -by your standards isn't that Ad. Homein attacking-better stop or I will have to go to the Moderator.Hey -Judge Moore Moderate this!



Kevin Deegan wrote:
Are you implying Dean called you such NAMES?

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups?

DAVEH:   Hmmmmmmmm........well, I hadn't thought about dissecting you guys, but it is a tempting thought you've given me!      ;-)

Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?

DAVEH:  LOL......Sometimes I think SPers are their own worst enemy!  You have the power to push the button that bars me from TT, Dean.  If you do such, I don't think your problems will all go with me.   I've been called a pagan here, a snake in the grass, satan's messenger boy........and I've been falsely accused of condoning violence against SPers.  So let me ask you, Dean......Is it the Christian in you doing such-or are you just plain mea n?

Dean Moore wrote:
cd:Dave why are you trying to fuel dissection between the groups??Is it the Mormon in you doing such-or are you just plain mean?.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
F rom: Lance Muir
Sent: 3/7/2006 11:03:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator commentADHOM*************

The latter.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 07, 2006 10:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM*************

IFO would not have such an assessment of anyone on TT.

DAVEH:   Is that is because you do not consider yourself a protected friend of the moderator and fear reprisal, Lance.... .or is it because you have a measure of respect for TT rules and other TTers?

Lance Muir wrote:
So Kevin, at least I know where we stand. Thanks for the clarity in your judgment. IFO would not have such an assessment of anyone on TT.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 07, 2006 09:17
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM*************

This is why I call you UNREGENERATE/LOST
Lost in sin dull of hearing of God's word not mine.


Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ROTFLOL No you are in Sin 'cause YOU bore false witness. So there! Tak e that! Nya nya!!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 07, 2006 07:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM*************

You are in SIN you bore false witness
Du 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;  And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Then you added SIN to SIN in refusing to answer questions about such False testimony
Leviticus 5:1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Point proven?? Like I said, I stay for the humour.
----- Original Message -----
< DIV style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; moz-background-clip: initial; moz-background-origin: initial; moz-background-inline-policy: initial">From: Dean Moore
Sent: March 06, 2006 21:05
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM*************

Moderator: Point proven Kevin-Thank you-There is truth here in what you say.Carry on .
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/6/2006 8:55:37 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] ***************Respose - Moderator comment ADHOM*************

Moderator: Kevin can you prove this to be true about Lance?
 
Noun: false witness  A person who deliberately gives false testimony
 
Ex 20:16 thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor
 
Read the post from DH about then lance's response, he says
"Me too, Dave. When TRUELY OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR is objected to (by 'acting out') these persons occasionally do seem surprised."
 
Does repeating stories about which one was not a witness qualify for bearing FALSE WITNESS?
 
IF YOU WANT TO BE JUDGE then according to DU 19 you need to make DILIGENT INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER! This is only FAIR and according to God's word it is also RIGHT!
Du 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;  And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
 
Let me present some FACTS for your consideration:
 
1) Let me remind you I was an EYE WITNESS to the events.
Du 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
It is my Person that has been the victim of the attack.
In the SPIRIT of fair play I posted additional questions to defend my good name that has been wrongly DEFAMED.
Salt Lake City is a place to which Lance probably has never set foot let alone during our preaching activities there. In fact he has never seen me preach PERIOD. So how could he be a witness, other than a false?
DH was not a witness either.
Neither DH nor Lance qualify as a eye witness nor a single witness.
according to DU 19:15 they are then both in SIN!
 
I refuse to apologize for the truth of my statements.
 
2) Then to address/correct the issue I asked for a description of the so called "OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR"
Of course none was forthcoming!
According to God's word this BEHAVIOUR is an additional OFFENCE!
Leviticus 5:1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
The particular QUESTIONS which I originaly posed:
What was the MOST OBJECTIONABLE part for you Lance?
What Behavior did you REALY REALY find Offensive.
Please fill us in on the deatails
We are waiting for the LOW DOWN
Where were you when you OBSERVERED this deplorable action?
Or are you just BEARING TRUELY False witness again?
where you there?
 
BTW no SP was taken to Jail it was a Mormon HIGH PRIEST that was carted off, and charged in CRIMINAL COURT!
This mormon HIGH PRIEST is therefore DISQUALIFIED:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler
FALSE, a. L. falsus, from fallo, to deceive. See Fall and Fail.
1. Not true; not conformable to fact; expressing what is contrary to that which exists, is done, said or thought. A false report communicates what is not done or said. A false accusation imputes to a person what he has not done or said. A false witness testifies what is not true. A false opinion is not according to truth or fact. The word is applicable to any subject, physical or moral.
2. Not well founded; as a false claim.
3. Not true; not according to the lawful standard; as a false weight or measure..
4. Substituted for another; succedaneous; supposititious; as a false bottom.
5. Counterfeit; forged; not genuine; as false coin; a false bill or note.
6. Not solid or sound; deceiving expectations; as a false foundation
False and slippery ground.
7. Not agreeable to rule or propriety; as false construction in language.
8. Not honest or just; not fair; as false play.
9. Not faithful or loyal; treacherous; perfidious; deceitful. The king's subjects may prove false to him. So we say, a false heart..
10. Unfaithful; inconstant; as a false fri end; a false lover; false to promises and vows.
The husband and wife proved false to each other.
11. Deceitful; treacherous; betraying secrets.
12. Counterfeit; not genuine or real; as a false diamond.
13. Hypocritical; feigned; made or assumed for the purpose of deception; as false tears; false modesty. The man appears in false colors. The advocate gave the subject a false coloring.
False fire, a blue flame, made by the burning of certain combustibles, in a wooden tube; used as a signal during the night.
False imprisonment, the arrest and imprisonment of a person without warrant or cause, or contrary to law; or the unlawful detaining of a person in custody.
FALSE, adv. Not truly; not honestly; falsely.
FALSE, v.t.
1. To violate by failure of veracity; to deceive. Obs.
2. To defeat; to balk; to evade. Obs..
Definition from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

Dean Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moderator: Kevin can you prove this to be true about Lance?If so please do so or stop the Ad. Hom .
Kevin wrote:"Or are you just BEARING TRUELY False witness again?" (see your wording in the below)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/6/2006 3:03:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?

AH HAH you have found ABSOLUTE TRUTH again!
"TRUELY OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR"
See you can find the ABSOLUTE when you want to that is the problem most O the time you just plain don't want to!
 
What was the MOST OBJECTIONABLE part for you Lance?
What Behavior did you REALY REALY find Offensive.
Please fill us in on the deatails
We are waiting for the LOW DOWN
Where were you when you OBSERVERED this deplorable action?
Or are you just BEARING TRUELY False witness again?
where you there?

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Me too, Dave. When TRUELY OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR is obj ected to (by 'acting out') these persons occasionally do seem surprised.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 06, 2006 10:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?

DAVEH:  OK Dean, I understand your sensitivity to such and will respond without using the words you find objectionable.   I would like to continue to discuss this, as I find it interesting to see how SPers think.

    I am curious as to why one would still show up on somebody's doorstep when an objectionable topic is mentioned rather than discuss it with them via the phone or email?  What is to be accomplished by a personal visit?  Most folks would understand such a visit to be a physical threat, even though it could be claimed that the offended has a constitutional right to confront the offender.

    The reason I ask this is because it seems to me that many SPers seemed surprised that they are physically attacked when confronting sinners on the streets.  Yet they feel compelled to stare the jaws of death (so to speak) in the mou th.  Is this a martyr complex of sorts?  Does i t give SPers confidence if they are persecuted for the Lord's sake ?  I suppose an argument can be made that if one dies while in the service of the Lord, it would be a feather in the cap of the persecuted while at the same time driving the persecutor even deeper into hell.  To me that seems like rather odd logic, considering that the SPer (or guy showing up on the doorstep) is somewhat a catalyst in this scenario.  IOW....Is a SPer guilty of promoting a problem when he uses his constitutionally guaranteed free speech to aggravate a situation that can and will likely turn to violence?



Dean Moore wrote:
 Moderator: Wouldn't have to show up in Portland DaveH-all I would have to do is click a button and my problem is solved and that is exactly what I going to do the next time you use the words-****************** in the combination that you used them below. Discussion over-warning given!
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 3/5/2006 12:52:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The 'spirit' of truthtalk?


DAVEH:   Dean, from what you said previously about the oneness of husband and wife, if I were to ask you about ************,, you would take that as a personal attack on ****** and would then presume it to be a personal attack on you as well, and then proceed to come to Portland and show up on my doorstep.....is that correct?  Wouldn't it be smarter just to say the same thing to me via email or a phone call, rather than show up on my doorstep?  What would be accomplished by coming to Portland? 

    If I were then to assume you are on my doorstep for a reason other than an amicable discussion, and felt my life was being threatened by your presence on my doorstep, I would probably not answer the door.  Wouldn't that just frustrate your reason for going to all that effort, cost, time and travel in an effort to come to my do orstep?  Would you proceed to pound on my doo r exp e cting me to open it?  If I did not respond to your pounding, then what would you do?  And if you continued to pound on my door, what wo uld you do if I opened it with a gun in my hand, as I might do if I perceived you as being a threat to me in my home? 

    At that point, if you turned and left, nothing else would happen and you would have spent a lot of effort for little reason other than to satisfy your pride.  If on the other hand you were to raise the level of confrontation by arguing, and if I misunderstood the reasons you were on my doorstep confronting me and refusing to leave, would you be surprised if it led to a lethal action on my part?

    IF that above scenario were to occur, how do you think the law would view this matter?  Would I be found guilty of manslaughter, or would you be guilty of threatening my life to the point of my using justifiable lethal means in self-defense?  In my defens e, I'm sure my lawyer would quote your comment..... . ...< BR>

-


--   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply via email to