Probably so, no need to repeat myself; anyone who loves
truth by nature hates error. I can accept that these men may have been
well meaning and may have even done good things. But why camp around their
error? I understand that you will not agree since you don't believe that
anyone can know the truth because of the Reformation and all that. My
question then is how certain of these theologians have escaped the taint in
your view and only the least of the brethren are stuck with it?. The ones Paul
said should judge disputes in the church ....
I take your correction to heart, Judy. As to the
aforemention persons, let's just say that you've offered a much milder
treatmen below than on other occasions.
You are doing with my
words what your mentors do with God's Word Lance - which is interjecting
your own reasonings.
As for Calvin and Barth. Barth had his own
issues with God's Word which I prefer to let lie with him - Calvin however
is in my face at church and he is something
else. Here is a man who apparently taught and his disciples
today (who appear intelligent in every other way) - teach and lead
others to pass on the image of a Heavenly Father - the one Jesus
loved and communed with daily - who in His Sovereignty decrees a thing and
then punishes His Creation for doing what He decrees. Along the
same lines he decrees some saved and some lost so the responsibility there
is all on Him.
Since Jesus warned everyone (including you and I)
to take heed how we hear. I am amazed that this can be happening
in our day. In some circless there are more ppl paying heed to
these men's words than the Words of Jesus Himself.
As for what I said to you Lance - you have even put
your own spin on that. I never said anything about your
teaching.
Go back and read it again (I wonder if you do all
of your reading this way). I said you were reading MY WORDS with the
help of the powers of darkness who are the ones who scramble words,
interject different meanings, and keep confusion going. I said nothing
at all about your teaching or who does or does not help you. So let's
at least deal with the truth of the matter Lance.
"I don't have to accept their public
teachings when they are not in line with the CLEAR TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD'
(implicit within this: AS I SEE IT/God has granted Me
(Judy Taylor) the 'spiritual discernment' to see what such as Calvin &
Barth could not see)
IMO, what is further
implicit in what you've said both here and previously, Judy:To
reject a person's public teaching is not the same as 'denigrating them
personally' so, I do separate teaching/doing/ the Word.
When I say of Lance 'YOU
ARE TEACHING WITH THE HELP OF THE POWERS OF DARKNESS, LANCE', I
refer, of course, only to Lance's teaching; not to his person. (Is this
the case, Judy)
May I then feel free to similarly adjudicate
with respect to your own teaching/person? MR MODERATER(S): May I employ
Judy's _expression_ when speaking of her word for
word?
I don't know these men and I said nothing,
repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are
not in line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is
a LIE
An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why
don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et
al?
You are reading with the help of the powers
of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is
an
unfounded and evil accusation.
No accusation here, Judy. This is a
simple statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating
persons both on and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so
doing.
Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your
writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure
those who walk after the Spirit understand God's Word.
3. This accusation is uncalled for
Lance because what I addressed was personal accusations and this
is what you are
doing right
here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was
addressing ... Oh well! What's new....
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often
am). Let me take another run at it. On those occasions in which you indicate that you've
CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given
issue, do you not implicitly or explictly indicate that the
one(s) with whom you are speaking do not? Would you have genuine difficulty if
recalling many such instances over the last 6
months?
What then, am I attempting to
say? YOU DO THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on
occasion(s) THAT WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON
TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION.
Do you understand?
Do you agree with this assessment?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 14, 2005
08:13
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] TT Double Standard
No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge
this to be the case because everything that is spoken on TT
is not the
Word of God, and
not everything I write is the Word of God because
that would have to include opinion at
times along with personal
stories. So what is the point you are trying to make
here? Is it good to be calling one
another hypocrites and
disrespecting the Moderator? Where do you think this
kind of attitude leads??
When you describe that which
you say as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that
spoken by another as OTHER THAN the truth of the word of
god, Judy then, you are doing the very thing that you
speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'. Would you
not acknowledge this to be the case?
We should make accusing
each other personally a matter to be discussed
offline.
I find these constant
accusations to be both discouraging and wearying - are
we interested in Truth or not?
Why give the
enemy a platform to tear each other
down.
DAVEH: I don't think you understand
the nature of my posts, Perry. I'm not talking
about your sexual experiences. I'm talking
about Christian hypocrisy and the
double standard as practiced on TT. Is
the double standard on TT not a fair
topic? Why should I have to discuss that
matter offline? Is this not relevant to
all TTers, Perry?
I find it
very telling that you make false accusations
against me.......
you suggest I might have
some knowledge of Izzy's sexual
experiences,
.........which I did not
do. Go back and read my exact words if you don't
believe me. If you can't find them, I'll gladly
provide them and you can see for yourself that you are
again accusing me of something I did not
do.
you suggest that saying "one of Joseph
Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual
connotation,
..........That has been
suggested before on TT by other TTers, and the
moderator did nothing to discourage such
comments. Now you want to ban me from posting
something other TTers can post with no
retribution. This is simply another example of a
double standard.
you try to spin Dean up by
suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual
references.
.........I merely stated the
truth about Deans sensitivity to such
things. This was not an ad-hom attack. Is
the truth now a problem on TT? People
have said a lot more vile things about me with no
condemnation by the moderator. Why the double
standard now, Perry?
these amount to
false accusations,
DAVEH:
How can that possibly be a false
accusation if it is true, Perry? If
anything, it is you who is making false
accusations about me in this matter.
Once again....a TT double standard.
the
intentions of spinning Dean up on a banned
topic
DAVEH: You are
absolutely wrong again, Perry. You simply fail
to understand the nature of my posts. My
intentions are not to spin up Dean at all. It is
you who I am trying to enlighten as to the
Christian hypocrisy involving the double standard
practiced on TT with regard to Mormons. Until
you as the moderator recognize it, why should I
discontinue pointing it out every time it
occurs? Is not the TT double standard an
acceptable discussion topic?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, you suggest I might have some
knowledge of Izzy's sexual experiences, then
you suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths
spiritual wives" might have some sexual
connotation, then you try to spin Dean
up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual
references. These amount to false
accusations, with the intentions of
spinning Dean up on a banned topic. Any more
posts from you containing sexual references and I
will have to take you off the forum until you agree
not to do so. Take any issues you have up with me,
offline, at this address, not on the forum.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment
** Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:29:32 -0800
* Please try to /refrain /from
making sexual references, especially /false
accuastions/.*
DAVEH: Let's
see if I understand this, Perry. Recently I
asked some questions that were no more sexually
oriented than what you commonly make, Dean then
claimed foul......and you banned further
discussion based on the /perception /you and Dean
had about what those comments might have implied.
Now you have made a comment
that can be perceived to be sexually
charged..........
*If lucky, you may
become one of his many spirit wives! *
..........and you don't want to recognize
the double standard? It is interesting that
when you or other TTers make any kind of
denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with
sexual implications, nothing is considered off
limits. When I point out this obvious double
standard, I am cautioned by the moderator to
/refrain /from bringing the discussion to the TT
table under the guise of making/ false
accusations/. It must be convenient to have
a moderator who can see non-LDS posters through
one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely
different perspective of LDS posters through the
other, more critical eye. I suppose if one
has an ax to grind against LDS theology, and is
not embarrassed to publicly admit such....then it
should not surprise anybody to find that person
practicing a double standard. The curious
part about this is that it happens on a forum
called /TruthTalk/, where /truth /is presupposed
to be the dominating factor, yet it seems to be
suppressed when it comes to recognizing the
Christian hypocrisy found here.
Charles
Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
*
Please try to /refrain /from making sexual
references, especially /false accuastions/.*
This is not the forum for that? I am sure there
are many discussion forums about sex if that
type of discussion interests you.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually
Suggestive Comments Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005
21:07:35 -0800
**If lucky, you may
become one of his many spirit wives! **
DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is
going to rebuke you for making such sexually
suggestive comments, Perry! If not,
will we then have another example of
hypocritical Christianity in TT?
Charles
Perry Locke wrote:
Just be sure you
remember your secret password and secret
handshake so Joseph Smith will allow you
entrance into heaven. *If lucky, you may become
one of his many spirit wives! *
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off...
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST
I guess I never got to know you,
Christine--but hope to meet you in the great
beyond--you may be required to testify at the
Bar of God as to what you have seen and
heard on TT-- Blainerb
In a message
dated 12/11/2005 11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am signing off. I have
gotten sucked into the world of TT, and I think
it would be beneficial to my GPA to
bid adeiu. Thanks for all the discussions. I
have learned a great deal. May the
Lord bless you and keep you all.
It would be cool to meet you all
in real life some day. But maybe not all in
the same room. I wonder how that would
turn out... :-)
-Christine Miller
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
|