Your words are for the most part personal opinions
Lance and Garys are indecipherable so I leave those to others who
may be better equipped -
some of you seem to get a kick out of them but I'm not interested in Dylan or
the speculations
of his fans.. Have you
said something profound from God's Word that I missed Lance?
Is it safe to assume then, Judy, that 'YOU are
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'? Also,
if you read my words in this fashion then, what of the words of John, Bill,
'G' etc.? Perhaps we should not be upset
when you charge either us or 'living/dead theologians' as the problem is
indeed yours.
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)
|