Perhaps you should just post what you mean and mean what you post?
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.----- Original Message -----From: Lance MuirSent: December 15, 2005 06:37Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally.."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.----- Original Message -----From: Judy TaylorSent: December 15, 2005 06:20Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'I don't know these men and I have said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally.."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.On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:32:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:"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?From: Judy TaylorI don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat nothing, about them personally. I don't haveto 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 LIEOn Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't you research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?From: Judy TaylorYou are reading with the help of the powers of darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is anunfounded and evil accusation.On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: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.From: Judy TaylorOh, here is one I missed,1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance2. 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 aredoing right here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh well! What's new....On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: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 -----From: Judy TaylorSent: December 14, 2005 08:13Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double StandardNo Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the case because everything that is spoken on TT is not theWord of God, and not everything I write is the Word of God because that would have to include opinion attimes along with personal stories. So what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it good to be calling oneanother hypocrites and disrespecting the Moderator? Where do you think this kind of attitude leads??On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: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?From: Judy TaylorWe 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.On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: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)
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping