| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NOSPAM
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'? |
 |
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:51:28 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
AGain, stupid person, liar, delusional psychotic.
I'm not the only person who's seen it.
|
Provide some proof, or shut the hell up, weatherless.
And stop calling others such retarded names. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: And the "JW Archivable Gems" just keep on a comin'... |
|
|
On Jun 29, 3:35 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:47:42 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"<316k...@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Jun 29, 5:13 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
See above, stupid person. There is NO way to know FROM ABOVE, which
building it is.
If you could get down to 10 feet above the ground (you can't), you
MIGHT be able to figure out which building it is.
Actually, John...
I was able to originally identify your Washington DC church from
Google Maps using their satellite imagery. Because I could identify
the shape was like a church - from probably 500 feet above (or more) -
I was able to conclude that at the very least, there *was* a church
where you said there was a church.
Wanna reconsider?
Originally, for about 3 days, you swore up and down, "you had
LOOKED, and there was no such church."
You just don't get it, and there is NO point in trying to explain it
when you aren't interested to begin with.
|
From this reply, I'd say that it's you who doesn't "get it", John. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jani
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'? |
|
|
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0e90115-fdc3-4e17-9851-c95f7d120dc9@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 29, 8:30 am, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | No, you need to start with a map that shows the road layout as it was in
the
60s and then compare with the layout as it is now. Orient by remaining
landmarks. Figure out the radius of the relevant area, based on your '30
minutes' walk' criterion. Split that area into manageable sections, and
comb
those using Google, Multimap, LiveSearch - whichever one has the interface
you like best. Some have a 3D option which allows you to see the
buildings
from a side-angle as well as the top. Eliminate everything which is
obviously modern, not a church, etc. Note the possibilities which are
left,
using available road names, scale, etc to pinpoint them as accurately as
possible. *Then* you have some actual, solid data to give to anyone who is
willing to go down there and look. Although after the hissy-fit that you
threw at Andrew, I doubt you'll get many volunteers.
You're trying to give reasonable solutions to an unreasonable man,
Jani. Not only that, but you're asking him to take some time, do some |
work, and make an effort. None of which interests a lazy, unmotivated
| Quote: | narcissist like John Weatherly.
|
Well, if he were to make a start on the project, either on the lines I've
suggested or something equally pragmatic, I'm sure people would be very
quick to offer help in the areas where he might genuinely have problems -
reading OS maps, for instance. If they didn't, that would be unethical and
mean-spirited on their part. IMO, of course ;)
| Quote: | Does it never occur to you that every historian and archaeologist in the
country would be *delighted* to discover a hitherto-unknown sixth-century
church? Or do you think you're so incredibly important that they'd hush
it
up, just to avoid saying "John Weatherly was right"?
Yep - that's what the self-important and self-aggrandizing and bi-
polar paranoid schizophrenic John Weatherly believes alright.
|
And the irony is, if he made a serious and determined effort to search, and
the building *does* exist, he'd achieve genuine, international renown,
rather than small-scale unpleasant notoriety on a backwater of Usenet.
[]
| Quote: | Whether it looks like a church or not is irrelevant - *you* saw it,
allegedly, and so *you* know what it looks like.
Heck, Jani - he doesn't even know what USAF squadron he served in
while stationed at Alconbury (if he ever actually was there doing what
he said he was doing).
|
No, I'm willing to believe he was there, in some capacity or other.
| Quote: | I'm certainly taking a more rational approach to this 'missing church'
business than you are.
And in continuing to do so with Weatherly, you are acting insanely
(not meant to be an insult). You *do* know the definition of
insanity, don't you? Continuing to do the same the over and over
again while each time expecting a different result...
...that's basically what you are exercising here in attempting to
logically reason with John. Don't waste your time - it's useless,
Jani.
|
Heh, come on, Kelly, you try to get him to focus, as well. *points back at
you*  Seriously, I would *love* to find that there's an undiscovered 6th
century church just sitting there in a little Cambridgeshire town. And if
John could produce some hard data about the possible location, it could be
forwarded to the local historical societies for proper investigation. But
just saying "I saw it", especially coming from someone who's done their best
to wind up entire Usenet groups by telling blatant lies about anything and
everything - well, no.
Jani |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Re: And the "JW Archivable Gems" just keep on a comin'... |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:55:24 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: |
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:ejue64968hf5uvvod4tilhgfh6urbr7usq@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:12 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c4af0f4-999b-4da3-8502-0931eb12c20b@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 3:30 pm, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
Do a search on Youtube for Woodstock clips. Nostalgic and iconic, all
in
one
:)
I'll be interested to see if he can manage that one. He's now
claiming that he has accessed Google Earth, but I find that to be a
little suspect.
Yes, all the blathering about how 'every building isn't on there' doesn't
make sense,
Fine. I said it badly. Not every building that is photographed from
above is in the SEARCHABLE LIST.
They're all on the photographs, though.
|
Was there a point there?
Not that I noticed.
You pretend to be intelligent, but when it comes time to actually use
your brain, you are incapable of adding 2 and 2.
If those buildings "in the photograph" aren't LABELED, or LISTED in
the searchable list,
as in "give me the building at 3rd and D street. (My old school)
You can't find it and KNOW WHAT IT IS, merely by seeing this speck
on the photo!
You keep giving us the IMPRESSION that you're smart.
You aren't!
| Quote: |
And I DEFY you to find the tiny building in England and KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE LOOKING AT FROM ABOVE.
For one thing, you won't see the cornerstone (it faces FRONT) from
ABOVE.
Nor do I "blather." You LIAR!
when he's referring to an area of Britain which is fairly well
covered. If he can see the main gate at Alconbury, he can also see where
his
church is supposed to be.
See above, stupid person. There is NO way to know FROM ABOVE, which
building it is.
If you could get down to 10 feet above the ground (you can't), you
MIGHT be able to figure out which building it is.
And you PRETEND to be smart!
If you know where it is, you can identify it from above.
|
Good grief! Perhaps *I* could figure out which building it is.
But if it isn't labeled in the photo, how do I convince YOU?
Shall I just arbitrarily pick one of the unlabeled buildings in the
photo and say, " Ah! I found it! There it is! That one in the
middle WITH NO LABEL!"
I'm not that dishonest.
You're not all that smart.
I searched for the
| Quote: | house I was born in, which is surrounded by almost identical houses, in an
area which has undergone substantial redevelopment. I was still able to work
out which one it was, despite all the changes.
|
Congrats!
And I visited that church ONCE. Over 40 years ago.
I know the area, but there are probably 10 newer buildings around
it. I've had several people tell me, that particular stretch of real
estate has a dozen or so new buildings on it.
Where the church was clearly visible from the road when I was there,
it is likely buried among a cluster of half-a-dozen buildings now.
And-- as I said -- I've been to it ONCE.
| Quote: |
I've been there, I know where the building is. But I don't recognize
it, and-- as a local pointed out-- there have been new roads cut and
built, and the Main Gate has been moved. The ONLY way to find the
church would be from the main road, and-- unfortunately-- I don't
recall the NAME of the main road. I know it goes to Ely in one
direction (out the main gate and turn left, iirc), and I know the main
road goes to Peterborough and Cambridge. I don't know what that road
is called, and I'm not all that good at map reading.
Try Multimap. That shows both original and new roads in many areas. Use the
big-scale ordinary map to find a landmark road, like the one between Ely and
Cambridge, then zoom in and use the aerial view to follow the line of the
old road.
|
I suggest you do that.
I have MUCH better things to do with my time. I TRULY don't "dance
on your strings.
| Quote: |
I see you would MUCH rather criticize than try to help get at the
TRUTH.
That's what you do! You criticize!
You COULD get SMART and go take a look for yourself!
The last person who offered to go look promised me he'd give me a
call on his cell phone when he got there, and promised to visit both
sides of both bases.
ALL he did was to
1 waste his time, and didn't get there when he said he would (he was
on his way to a wedding, he said)
2 when he got to Alconbury, INSTEAD of "doing the walk " like I
asked, he INSTEAD went to the guard at the main gate, who didn't know
what he was talking about, and simply said, "there's no such church
over there."
Which isn't exactly a search. He made a short walk, didn't see the
church "where HE """ calculated """ it must be", and gave up.
Nonsense.
|
So, if all I talk is nonsense, how do you even understand me?
You believe what you CHOOSE to believe.
I was in on the discussion, too. It involved ME. It was ABOUT ME.
Don't tell me what he said. You garbled it GOOD!
He DIDN'T BOTHER!
He asked a guard. The guard said "no such church." (the guard
didn't know, didn't CARE. knowing the local landmarks isn't his job)
SNIP |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: And the "JW Archivable Gems" just keep on a comin'... |
|
|
On Jun 29, 6:19 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I repeat, " I believe Mike Weatherly's accomplishments speak for
themselves.
Where do you see me mention "me" in that comment?
What's wrong with me being proud of my family?
Answer: Nothing.
|
Hmmm...I guess you don't remember your statement a couple of weeks
back...I think it went something like...
"When I say 'family' I mean my immediate family. I don't consider my
ancestors or distant relatives, "family".
So...have you changed your mind and you now consider anyone with the
same last name as you to be "family"?
| Quote: | Your issues of green envy are not my concern.
|
Envy? Over a guy on a TV show who isn't related to you but you want
to believe is related to you because he has the same last name as
you?!?! lol...too darn funny, John.
| Quote: | If you and your family have accomplished NOTHING in this life, who
is to blame for that?
|
Actually my family and I have accomplished much in our lives.
| Quote: | See above. You make such ridiculous ^ ^ ^ comments because you
have accomplished "ZERO."
And we both know that!
|
lol!!! Are you smokin' BC Bud again tonight, John?
| Quote: | People come in here to chat; I'm chatting.
|
No, you're lying.
| Quote: | If you don't like it, you can leave.
|
No.
| Quote: | It's called being an attention whore, John.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Your comment is called "NOT being supportive of your
family when they are successful, and some manage to be even RICH and
FAMOUS.
|
See your above statement from a couple of weeks ago regarding who you
see as family and who you don't.
| Quote: | It's called trying to be
something on someone else's shirt-tail.
^ ^ ^ ^ ??? It IS? I didn't know that. You have now expressed
ONE LOSER's opinion. (< that would be YOU )
|
Riiight. Hit a nerve, did I?
| Quote: | It's called being a
narcissist.
chuckle. I see your gun is out of bullets AGAIN.
|
Nuh-uh. Put your glasses on ===> Bullseye!
| Quote: | I am simply pointing out ( the fact ) that talent runs in the family..
Fine. "Talent runs in [your] family".
Bow.
But Jim Weatherly, Michael
Weatherly, and Shawn Nichols Weatherly are not your "family", John.
??? ^ ^ ^ ^ Now, how would you know that? Have you done DNA
comparison?
|
Have you?
| Quote: | You MIGHT POSSIBLY stop, think (< a new thing for you), and ASK,
"John, why do you think you're related to all of those celebrities?"
Nah! That would be too much like THINKING!
|
You think you're related to them because you are a wannabe and a
narcissist who believes that the entire universe revolves around you,
that's why.
| Quote: | Their accomplishments are not yours, as much as you would like them to
be.
smirk.
I have my own accomplishments to bask in;
|
Forgot to flush the toilet again, John?
| Quote: | I have no need to bask
in Mike's or Shawn's or Jim's achievements.
But, I'm betting if I ever get the opportunity to meet one or more
of them, they'll be delighted.
|
I imagine they'll have you arrested.
| Quote: | (there's a reason for that)
|
There is indeed..."America's Most Wanted".
| Quote: | The same basic reason why I SHOULD have introduced myself to the
Irish Merchant Marine whose name was "John Weatherly" when I was in
England.
"Another story for another time." (it'll be in my book. )
|
Oh, yeah...your "book". When you gonna transfer that tome to real
paper instead of spiral-bound notebook and Crayola Crayon?
| Quote: | Wait til you hear about my son! ;-)
You know, that kid has already had to deal with enough stigma and
heartache being the product of your sperm donation - why not just
leave him out of here?
^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ One ugly comment I'll let slide. That is just too low a
blow to even merit a response.
|
But somehow quite accurate, I imagine. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: PCUSA drops ban on gay clergy |
|
|
On Jun 29, 2:17 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<1stCenturyAposto...@Traditionalist.com> wrote:
| Quote: | jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4256a104-f201-4705-b045-708f0ce584ba@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 29, 1:06 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
1stCenturyAposto...@Traditionalist.com> wrote:
jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:98377624-4c7d-4b91-ac03-04f97f8ced9d@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 28, 5:34 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
1stCenturyAposto...@Traditionalist.com> wrote:
jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:caaa9d54-718b-48fd-a316-982e7ef29f5d@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 28, 2:31 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
1stCenturyAposto...@Traditionalist.com> wrote:
"- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
messagenews:v4ydnbdnYY2RmPvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
"Student" <theology...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd660c92-a8ec-47e2-9720-d5bd4617f54c@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups..com...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re/rel_presbyterians_gays
Looks like it's headed thatta way after all these years.
Wonder how many churches will bail out.
There is only one Church,
True, and it certainly won't be seen fellowshipping fornicating
same-sex
offenders.
" 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not
be
once named among you, as becometh saints;" Eph 5:3 (KJV)
Jeff...
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Pleonexia pleh-on-ex-ee'-ah
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Feminine 6:266,864
Definition
greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice
Translated Words
KJV (10) - covetous practice, 1; covetousness, 8; greediness, 1;
NAS (10) - covetousness, 1; deeds of coveting, 1; greed, 7;
greediness, 1;
As one who covets the glory of the One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, yet is a triple heretic, Arian, Pelagian,
and Gnostic -so-called, that scripture should humble you,
if your heart was not so stonry.
Jim
Eze 11:19 - And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new
spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh,
and will give them an heart of flesh:
-----------------------------------
Which still doesn't alter the fact.....that Christ's Church will never
be
seen fellowshipping 'unrighteous' fornicators, re-married adulterers or
the
"Vile affection" proudly and openly propagated by same-sex offenders.
"9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers,
nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6:9-10
(RSV)
Jeff...
"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be
ONCE named among you, as becometh saints;" Eph 5:3 (KJV)
Since you covet the Glory that is
not yours, you condemn yourself.
-------------
Covert what Glory?
It's covet.
Ro 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I
had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Ro 3:23 - For all have sinned,
and come short of the glory of God;
As you are indirectly offended at Paul's condemnation of fornication,
homosex abomination, covetousness etc, which should not even ONCE be named
amongst the saints of God, then it shows just how much you are divorced
from
the reality of Christian moral teaching and living.
Which does actually raise the suspicion....you aren't a practising
homosexual yourself are you?
Jeff...
-------------------
It's always the other person,
and never you?
-------------------
Right, it's not me, so are you one of them?
|
The term I used for you
Jer 6:13 - For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them
every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the
priest every one dealeth falsely.
You are one of these
Ro 3:23 - For all have sinned,
and come short of the glory of God;
Isa 64:6 - But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
| Quote: | It would certainly make sense with the way you attack anyone correctly
showing Scripture contempt and disapproval of such wicked "Vile affections"
and perverted lifestyles.
What does Inspired Paul state.... "God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Romans 1:26-28 (KJV)
Ah! so are we to conclude you too Jim, have been given over "to a reprobate
mind."?
Or maybe you have a short memory....."7 And don't forget the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind,
including lust of men for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and
continue to be a warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are
punished." Jude 1:7 (TLB)
Now! don't start on Paul again....he is only informing you of the penalties
for refusing to hearken to 1st Century righteous teaching and moral living.
Jeff
|
Paul did not have your pride, he said
of himself
1Ti 1:15 - This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am
chief.
Maybe you should hear Jesus
Mt 7:5 -Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye.
I have asked you many times to study the Law
and the Gospel, but your pride has kept you
from doing so,
Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, 1558
We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is
called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be
gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of
this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal
sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/lawgospel.htm
Jim
Pr 16:18 - Pride goeth before destruction,
and an haughty spirit before a fall. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: Re: PCUSA drops ban on gay clergy |
|
|
LAW AND GOSPEL
By C.F.W. Walther
Thesis I.
The doctrinal contents, of the entire Holy Scriptures, both of the Old
and the New Testament, are made up of two doctrines differing
fundamentally from each other, viz., the Law and the Gospel.
Thesis II.
Only he is an orthodox teacher who not only presents all the articles
of faith in accordance with Scripture, but also rightly distinguishes
from each other the Law and the Gospel.
Thesis III.
Rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel is the most difficult
and the highest art of Christians in general and of theologians in
particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of
experience.
Thesis IV.
The true knowledge of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel
is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of
the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is
and remains a sealed book.
Thesis V.
The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily
recognized and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists,
Socinians, and Rationalists and consists in this, that Christ is
represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver, and the Gospel turned into a
doctrine of meritorious works, while at the same time those who teach
that the Gospel is the message of the free grace of God in Christ are
condemned and anathematized, as is done by the papists.
Thesis VI.
In the second place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
Law is not preached in its full sternness and the Gospel not in its
full sweetness, when, on the contrary, Gospel elements are mingled
with the Law and Law elements with the Gospel.
Thesis VII.
In the third place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
Gospel is preached first and then the Law; sanctification first and
then justification; faith first and then repentance; good works first
and then grace.
Thesis VIII.
In the fourth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
Law is preached to those who are already in terror on account of their
sins or the Gospel to those who live securely in their sins.
Thesis IX.
In the fifth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
sinners who have been struck down and terrified by the Law are
directed, not to the Word and Sacraments, but to their own prayers and
wrestlings with God in order that they may win their way into a state
of grace; in other words, when they are told to keep on praying and
struggling until they feel that God has received them into grace.
Thesis X.
In the sixth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
preacher describes faith in a manner as if the mere inert acceptance
of truths, even while a person is living in mortal sins, renders that
person righteous in the sight of God and saves him; or as if faith
makes a person righteous and saves him for the reason that it produces
in him love and reformation of his mode of living.
Thesis XI.
In the seventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
there is a disposition to offer the contrition of the Gospel only to
those who have been made contrite by the Law, not from fear of the
wrath and punishment of God, but from love of God.
Thesis XII.
In the eighth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
preacher represents contrition alongside of faith as a cause of the
forgiveness of sin.
Thesis XIII.
In the ninth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when one
makes an appeal to believe in a manner as if a person could make
himself believe or at least help towards that end, instead of
preaching faith into a person's heart by laying the Gospel promises
before him.
Thesis XIV.
In the tenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when faith
is required as a condition of justification and salvation, as if a
person were righteous in the sight of God and saved, not only by
faith, but also on account of his faith, for the sake of his faith,
and in view of his faith.
Thesis XV.
In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
Gospel is turned into a preaching of repentance.
Thesis XVI.
In the twelfth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the
preacher tries to make people believe that they are truly converted as
soon as they have become rid of certain vices and engage in certain
works of piety and virtuous practices.
Thesis XVII.
In the thirteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a
description is given of faith, both as regards its strength and the
consciousness and productiveness of it, that does not fit all
believers at all times.
Thesis XVIII.
In the fourteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
the universal corruption of mankind is described in such a manner as
to create the impression that even true believers are still under the
spell of ruling sins and are sinning purposely.
Thesis XIX.
In the fifteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
the preacher speaks of certain sins as if they were not of damnable,
but of a venial nature.
Thesis XX.
In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a
person's salvation is made to depend on his association with the
visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person
who errs in any article of faith.
Thesis XXI.
In the seventeenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
men are taught that the Sacraments produce salutary effects ex opere
operato, that is, by the mere outward performance of a sacramental
act.
Thesis XXII.
In the eighteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a
false distinction is made between a person's being awakened and his
being converted; moreover, when a person's inability to believe is
mistaken for his not being permitted to believe.
Thesis XXIII.
In the nineteenth place, the Word of God is not right divided when an
attempt is made by means of the demands or the threats or the promises
of the Law to induce the unregenerate to put away their sins and
engage in good works and thus become godly; on the other hand, when an
endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by
the admonition of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.
Thesis XXIV.
In the twentieth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
the unforgiven sin against the Holy Ghost is described in a manner as
if it could not be forgiven because of its magnitude.
Thesis XXV.
In the twenty-first place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when
the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general
predominance in his teaching.
C.F.W. Walther was the first president of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod.
Excerpted from Law and Gospel, by C.F.W. Walther, pages 1-4. Used by
permission of the publisher, Concordia Publishing House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.issuesetc.org
Management Techniques Incorporated has provided this article archive
expressly for Issues, Etc. The articles in this archive have been
formatted converted for internet use, by Management Techniques, Inc.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar49.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: Re: And the "JW Archivable Gems" just keep on a comin'... |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: | On Jun 29, 5:26 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, I only just this week mentioned my brother. I try very
hard to keep my family out of here.
Not true. You have mentioned you brother countless times. And your
sister.
|
"Ok!" I can do that. > "Not true."
^ ^ True!
| Quote: |
I believe Mike Weatherly's accomplishments speak for themselves.
For himself, yes. For you = ZERO
|
I repeat, " I believe Mike Weatherly's accomplishments speak for
themselves.
Where do you see me mention "me" in that comment?
What's wrong with me being proud of my family?
Answer: Nothing.
Your issues of green envy are not my concern.
If you and your family have accomplished NOTHING in this life, who
is to blame for that?
| Quote: |
I
believe Jim Weatherly's accomplishments speak for themselves.
For himself, yes. For you = ZERO
|
See above. You make such ridiculous ^ ^ ^ comments because you
have accomplished "ZERO."
And we both know that!
| Quote: |
I believe Shawn Nichols' accomplishments speak for themselves (she
was Miss Universe [ 1976 iirc ], and then she was in several of the
"Police Academy" movies.
For herself, yes. For you = ZERO
And BTW, you're not realted to any of them. Just because you happen
to have the same last name (which is not *that* uncommon of a name,
John), doesn't mean that you are related to them.
|
smirk.
If that notion gives you comfort... "be my guest." Here's a good
place to plug in an old axiom.
"No skin off my nose."
People come in here to chat; I'm chatting.
If you don't like it, you can leave.
| Quote: |
He loves to glory in the imagined and actual
accomplishments of others - especially his family members.
???? ^ ^ ^ What's wrong with that?
It's called being an attention whore, John.
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Your comment is called "NOT being supportive of your
family when they are successful, and some manage to be even RICH and
FAMOUS.
:-)
It's called trying to be
| Quote: | something on someone else's shirt-tail.
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ??? It IS? I didn't know that. You have now expressed
ONE LOSER's opinion. (< that would be YOU )
It's called being a
chuckle. I see your gun is out of bullets AGAIN.
| Quote: |
I am simply pointing out ( the fact ) that talent runs in the family.
Fine. "Talent runs in [your] family".
|
Bow.
But Jim Weatherly, Michael
| Quote: | Weatherly, and Shawn Nichols Weatherly are not your "family", John.
|
??? ^ ^ ^ ^ Now, how would you know that? Have you done DNA
comparison?
You MIGHT POSSIBLY stop, think (< a new thing for you), and ASK,
"John, why do you think you're related to all of those celebrities?"
Nah! That would be too much like THINKING!
;-)
| Quote: | Their accomplishments are not yours, as much as you would like them to
be.
|
smirk.
I have my own accomplishments to bask in; I have no need to bask
in Mike's or Shawn's or Jim's achievements.
But, I'm betting if I ever get the opportunity to meet one or more
of them, they'll be delighted.
(there's a reason for that)
The same basic reason why I SHOULD have introduced myself to the
Irish Merchant Marine whose name was "John Weatherly" when I was in
England.
"Another story for another time." (it'll be in my book. )
| Quote: |
Wait til you hear about my son! ;-)
You know, that kid has already had to deal with enough stigma and
heartache being the product of your sperm donation - why not just
leave him out of here?
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ One ugly comment I'll let slide. That is just too low a
blow to even merit a response.
However, a "low-key" response MIGHT go like this: That comment
shows a total lack of character. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
bob young
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: Re: Tongues have ceased. instead of the Holy Spirit witnessi |
|
|
Raymond wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 10:57 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
Raymond wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:07 am, "Greg" <grandall11@optusnet(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
"old man joe" <n...@home.com> wrote in messagenews:gs5o54hbl1filaudkm68kq5ig6noson40c@4ax.com...
" but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon
you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Acts 1:8
all of the above cited locations in Acts 1:8 have mention in the
Bible since tongues were witnessed there. having fulfilled Jesus
prophecy of Acts 1:8 tongues are finished a long, long time ago.
You still have not posted one verse that says Tongues would cease by a
certain date.
Indeed you have fooled yourself according to the above verse as the the
Gospel still has not reached the remotest parts of the earth.
Out of two billion plus in India and China as well as many Muslim
nations the Gospel still has not reached them, let alone the remotest
parts of the earth.
Thank god for that.........
Yes it keeps the job open and lots of people to reach, yes thank GOD,
as long as people that have not heard are with us, we have a lot to
talk and work with.
|
Yes more children to be indoctrinated with old superstitions
Nice business though, it always has been of course.
How rich is the Catholic Church of Rome?
| Quote: |
Slowly, the pendulum is shifting away from superstition and
toward scientific fact. We need to let nature run its
course. No point in spending all of one's energy arguing
with people whose minds are tightly shut. Better to use our
energies to improve things in the here and now.
[Charles F. Haanel]
I can agree with Haanel here also it seems to be a wast of time and
energy to waste on atheist then we still love them so it is better to
keep caring for their soul, as God knows they don't.
|
Yes I noticed your 'love' in an earlier post.
All you love are yoursleves and your imaginary god
| Quote: |
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main
sources of cruelty
[Bertrand Russell 1892-1970]
I suppose atheist would fit that, since nations that were atheist such
as the old USSR and Red China does have a history of cruelty. Thanks
for bring this out.
|
ASnd other countries do not?
Spain, Italy, France, Portugal
Nearly three hundred years of burning heretics at the stake
in what they termed in their wisdom 'The Inquisition.'
Fear is the basis and foundation of all religions as this,
never equalled, period wanton murder shows. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
john w
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'? |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:40:30 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
| Quote: |
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:301f64l34obgu3v0rc7atpqiljkju1o07g@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:10:39 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eebad2c8-6ce2-43b4-98c9-98e6c79cd7e6@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 11:12 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
You'll never know if you saw EITHER church, until you go there ON
FOOT.
Have you not read what Jani wrote a couple of days ago, John? Someone
from this group (in the past, IIRC), who lives in the UK, went looking
for your imaginary church and was never able to locate it.
It was a chap called Andrew;
I believe so.
I think he came in on a crosspost from another
group.
Didn't know that.
Anyway, he was going to the area, for a wedding
Correct. The wedding of "a high school buddy."
or something, and so
he spent the rest of the weekend armed with his camera,
WRONG!
Yes, I was mistaken on that part.
He "got off late, then got tied up in traffic. RATHER than "having
the DAY to look, " he ended up with about 30 MINUTES.
He did a quick "drive around", "didn't see anything", then went to
the guard's gate.
The guard saying "no such church" was "enough PROOF for Andrew."
He walked through the village, walked down to the base, looked in the area
*you* had told him to look in,
Not according to what he wrote. |
He said he looked RIGHT NEXT TO THE MAIN GATE.
I didn't say that. I said "it was about a 5-minute walk" from the
main gate.
Now I don't know how fast YOU walk, but I can do SEVERAL BLOCKS (like
several HUNDRED FEET) in 5 minutes.
If he "looked right next to the main gate", he was nowhere near the
church.
I said CLEARLY, "You CANNOT SEE THE CHURCH FROM THE GATE." You can't
even walk to the road, or across the road, and see the church FROM THE
GATE.
You both have missed that CRITICAL point! ^ ^ ^
took photos to show that the church by the
| Quote: | gate is not 6th century.
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "took pictures to show that THE CHURCH BY THE GATE IS NOT
THE 6TH CENTURY CHURCH."
I never said the church was "by the main gate."
He did you a favour, John, why are you lying about
^ ^ ^ Why are YOU lying (years later) about what was said?
he came back, he said, "the church is NOT """ by the main gate""".
I never said it was, and said so.
He said, "sure you did."
I said, "re-examine your notes. I said 5 minute walk from the main
gate."
He "didn't see the difference."
Actually, having lived there for over a year, I am totally familiar
with how the area was in 1968.
I followed his comments with my mind's eye. As near as I can tell,
from HIS WORDS, he never even got close. He "looked in all the wrong
places."
Others have told me, the area has been built up considerably since I
was there. Meaning, the building in question is likely surrounded by
other buildings.
| Quote: |
Who SAID UP FRONT that he "was only going to look to PROVE TO HIMSELF
that the church wasn't there."
^ ^ ^^ Self-fulfilling prophesy.
Really? Care to provide a reference for that?
|
The link YOU PROVIDED. Take another look.
At any rate, I am not interested in any more rehash.
Andrew didn't get it right. (sad, since he actually took the time to
"go there" / sort of)
Then every one slapped his back because he had "bothered", but he
left the directions at home, so he "went from memory" and go the
information TOTALLY Wrong.
ENUF, already!
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Penal substitution theory of the atonement |
|
|
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.
I tossed in my 2c worth from an Orthodox point of view at:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/
in case anyone is interested.
Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Penal substitution theory of the atonement |
|
|
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.
I tossed in my 2c worth from an Orthodox point of view at:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/
in case anyone is interested.
Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Penal substitution theory of the atonement |
|
|
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.
I tossed in my 2c worth from an Orthodox point of view at:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/
in case anyone is interested.
Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jani
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'? |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:5hhj641gqar852ueu7oo9luig9kl1n5t7l@4ax.com...
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:40:30 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:301f64l34obgu3v0rc7atpqiljkju1o07g@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:10:39 +0100, "Jani" <jani@jani.adsl24.co.uk
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eebad2c8-6ce2-43b4-98c9-98e6c79cd7e6@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 11:12 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
You'll never know if you saw EITHER church, until you go there ON
FOOT.
Have you not read what Jani wrote a couple of days ago, John? Someone
from this group (in the past, IIRC), who lives in the UK, went looking
for your imaginary church and was never able to locate it.
It was a chap called Andrew;
I believe so.
I think he came in on a crosspost from another
group.
Didn't know that.
Anyway, he was going to the area, for a wedding
Correct. The wedding of "a high school buddy."
or something, and so
he spent the rest of the weekend armed with his camera,
WRONG!
Yes, I was mistaken on that part.
He "got off late, then got tied up in traffic. RATHER than "having
the DAY to look, " he ended up with about 30 MINUTES.
He did a quick "drive around", "didn't see anything", then went to
the guard's gate.
The guard saying "no such church" was "enough PROOF for Andrew."
He walked through the village, walked down to the base, looked in the area
*you* had told him to look in,
Not according to what he wrote.
He said he looked RIGHT NEXT TO THE MAIN GATE.
I didn't say that. I said "it was about a 5-minute walk" from the
main gate.
Now I don't know how fast YOU walk, but I can do SEVERAL BLOCKS (like
several HUNDRED FEET) in 5 minutes.
If he "looked right next to the main gate", he was nowhere near the
church.
I said CLEARLY, "You CANNOT SEE THE CHURCH FROM THE GATE." You can't
even walk to the road, or across the road, and see the church FROM THE
GATE.
You both have missed that CRITICAL point! ^ ^ ^
took photos to show that the church by the
gate is not 6th century.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "took pictures to show that THE CHURCH BY THE GATE IS NOT
THE 6TH CENTURY CHURCH."
I never said the church was "by the main gate."
He did you a favour, John, why are you lying about
him?
^ ^ ^ Why are YOU lying (years later) about what was said?
|
You invented a dialogue between Andrew and the guard which didn't take
place - in fact, you had the nerve to complain later because he *didn't* ask
the guard!
| Quote: |
he came back, he said, "the church is NOT """ by the main gate""".
I never said it was, and said so.
He said, "sure you did."
I said, "re-examine your notes. I said 5 minute walk from the main
gate."
He "didn't see the difference."
|
You posted several time that it was 'by the main gate'. You also mentioned
seeing a picture of a group of newer buildings, again *by the main gate*,
which you asserted might be now concealing the church. But in any case,
Andrew had walked *to* the gate from the village, and then gone around and
behind various buildings near to the gate: he didn't just drive up, look at
the gate, and drive away again.
| Quote: | Actually, having lived there for over a year, I am totally familiar
with how the area was in 1968.
|
So familiar that you've gone back and forth as to which base it is, let
alone which gate?
| Quote: | I followed his comments with my mind's eye. As near as I can tell,
from HIS WORDS, he never even got close. He "looked in all the wrong
places."
Others have told me, the area has been built up considerably since I
was there. Meaning, the building in question is likely surrounded by
other buildings.
|
Then it would *certainly* have been seen, identified, and publicised,
because you can't carry out any development in proximity to old buildings
without planning permission, impact assessments and so on.
| Quote: | Who SAID UP FRONT that he "was only going to look to PROVE TO HIMSELF
that the church wasn't there."
^ ^ ^^ Self-fulfilling prophesy.
Really? Care to provide a reference for that?
The link YOU PROVIDED. Take another look.
|
All he says it that it's a 'bold claim' on your part.
Jani |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: Dobson and Obama: Who is 'Deliberately Distorting'? |
|
|
On Jul 1, 8:52 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I definitely found some information, John - and I think that you are
trying to make sure that what I found will match the lies/stories
you've told in the past before you say any more.
You're falsely accusing me AGAIN, bitch.
Don't falsely accuse me, and I won't call you "ugly names."
I'd think you'd have figured that out by now.
I was there; I don't have to lie.
|
Were you really, John? If you were, why do you have to ask *me* what
units were at USAF Alconbury during the Vietnam Era?
| Quote: | But you have this obsession with "putting me in my place," so YOU lie
every chance you get.
|
You're projecting again, John.
| Quote: | And I'm not putting up with it.
Your ever lie is beign archived.
|
My "ever" lie? Sure John, whatever you say...
| Quote: | They didn't mention the mission, but they mentioned my unit.
It's not classified info, John. The Vietnam War has been over quite
some time now.
Really?
Do you ever StOP talking people down at every opportunity?
You realy do not encourage dialogue!
|
Reminding you that the base's information and "mission" is not
classifed and that the Vietnam was has been over for some time now is
"talking people down at every opportunity"?
Okaaaaayyy...
| Quote: | And there's no reason (just because YOU DEMAND IT) that they'd
mention the base's mission. "Even if that makes perfect sense to
YOU."
|
Unless it's a top-secret installation, there's no reason they
wouldn't.
| Quote: | As I've said MANY times, you LOVE To get very NOSY, and you ask LOTS
of questions. You don't answer any.
And I just gave you the correct information, and you didn't respond.
|
Upset that you don't control me - a lowly woman, John?
| Quote: | Meaning, you don't know.
|
No, I know.
| Quote: | Since it's on the web page, I was assigned to the 10th FMS.
|
"FMS" is the designation for "field maintenance squadron", is it not?
I thought you said you worked on environmental systems in the
F-4...isn't the primary duty of an FMS to do airframe repair?
Somehow, I think you are either once again confused or you are lying
about being with the 10th FMS at USAF Alconbury. Besides, John - if
you were with "the 10th" at Alconbury, you would have been with the
10th TFW or the 10th TRW. During the time you claim to have been at
Alconbury, there was no 10th FMS there - only 10th TFW and TRW.
Wanna try again?
"Stuipd!"? Well, I'm certainl smart enough to know how to *spell*
"stupid" - OTOH, you, the wannbe wordsmith spells it "stuipd". Next
time you call someone "stupid" you really should make sure you spell
"stupid" correctly so *you* aren't the one who appears to be "stuipd"
LOL!
| Quote: | Which is no secret! If you had truly dug through "my archives" for
YEARS, you'd know I've put that information in there a dozen times.
|
I have no interest in digging through your archives, John. You're
simply not that interesting or important to me.
| Quote: | I am betting YOU HAVE NO CLUE.
You lose.
But you didn't answer.
|
That's correct. It's also my perogative.
| Quote: | LOL! Oh, John - you are definitely a liar, just not a smart one.
Ah, the assumptions you psychos make!
Ah, the lies you manipulative sociopathic narcissists tell!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ You're out of bullets!
|
Nope - I have a large arsenal. You are the one shooting blanks, John. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
