-----
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?
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 friend; 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?
Me
too, Dave. When TRUELY OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR is objected
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 mouth. Is this a martyr complex of
sorts? Does it 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 doorstep? Would you proceed to pound on
my doo r expecting 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 would 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 defense, I'm sure my lawyer would quote your
comment.....
...
-