Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly show the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth. whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke. which lake of fire and brimstone is endless torment DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels DAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important and pertinent information, Kevin + 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels 37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; + .This is referring to a small but special category of those who (denied the Holy Spirit after having received it) are referred to as sons of perdition. While this represents a tangent thread which is not relevant to our discussion, please note vs 37 which differentiates them from all the others as he only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. This may not make sense Kevin, but these are not the folks of whom we usually think about when we talk about hell. After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone? DAVEH: Interestingly, you've quoted the chief judge (the antagonist) who was chiding Alma Amulek and while doing so, you have assumed that the chief judge quoted Alma correctly. However Kevin, that is an errant assumption, as the below quote shows... + [Alma 12:17] Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will. + ...Alma clearly taught that their torments were as a, indicating that Alma's explanation of fire and brimstone is a symbolic representation of hell. and their gtorment is as a lake of fire and brimstone DAVEH: Apparently you've got a serious computer virus, Keving is infecting your posts! The wording here suggests an analogy torment is as a lake whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end ...Again, clear symbolism that cannot be literally true. The two words is as plainly show this to be an analogy. sha ll have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death DAVEH: If there is any doubt as to the symbolic nature of hell, this surely puts it to rest by explaining what is meant by.that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: Another obvious literal impossibility that as an analogy makes sense. which lake of fire and brimst one is endless torment especially when it is explained as endless torment. the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out DAVEH: Which pretty well explains the difference in venue.some will reside in heaven, and some won't. Effectively, those not allowed to dwell in heaven will be spiritually and severely self tormented eternally. FWIWYou forgot to mention some of the other BoM passages that when taken with the others pretty well reveal the symbolic nature of the fire and brimstone hell. Consider Nephi's comments... [2Ne 9:14] Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness. [15] And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. [16] And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which
Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question
DAVEH: ModeratorModerator.HELP keep G under control. Now he's using canada without capitalizing it! (AndI don't think canada was meant to have a c on both ends!!!) =-O [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: beon guard, o canada On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:18:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave[H]:You appear rather exercised over this matter. Why is this such a 'hot button' issue for you?.. || -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
Iz:Firstly, I WAS referring to myself and, NOT to David. Will you, kindly, restate David's position in your own words? I know that there are numerous 'readings' of Genesis 1 - 11. The writers of Gen 1 - 11 meant something in what they wrote. There exists a reality concerning all of the matters addressed in Gen 1 - 11. There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 00:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, in all kindness may I submit to you the possibility that YOU might be the one with the cranial density problem? I found DM's statement to be quite lucid. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, upon reading David's post below, exhibits 'cranial density' his own self. Though I'd thought we would be further ahead, we're not. Why not submit this to David Miller for a rewrite? He's good at that sort of thing :). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 11:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? 'ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT BY GOD WILL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT GENESIS CHAPTERS 1 - 11' Have we just been provided with a perfect standard for determining who is/who is not 'taught by God'? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 07:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? I disagree with Lance. I say that all who are taught by God will say the same thing about Genesis Chapters 1 through 11 These are the ones who will all be saying the same thing in the end time and this is the unity Christ prayed for... The definition of believer should be one who speaks as the oracles of God On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:38:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Take Genesis chapters 1
Re: [TruthTalk] Hello
VOTE FOR JD!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Welcome to TT, Conor! I do hope you enjoy your stay hereBTWHave you ever had any experience moderating an email forum??? ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hello Everyone, I recently joined truth talk and just wanted to introduce myself. My nameis Conor Mancone. I'll be graduating from the University of Florida in a fewshort months with two degrees, one in physics and another in astronomy. Forthose of you who care for a little background, I would tell you that I havebeen religious my whole life. I was raised Catholic by my mother, and havealways believed and followed God. When I arrived at college, I began learninga lot more about my faith, as well as reading the Bible. Now adays, I'm happyto call myself christian, and I follow Jesus with all of my heart (or, to becompletely truthful, with as much of my heart as I can). I look forward togetting to know all of you and talking with you. -Conor -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal HellDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly show the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth.whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and everDAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke.which lake of fire and brimstone is endless tormentDAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angelsDAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important and pertinent information, Kevin+35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;+.This is referring to a small but special category of those who (denied the Holy Spirit after having received it) are referred to as sons of perdition. While this represents a tangent thread which is not relevant to our discussion, please note vs 37 which differentiates them from all the others as he only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. This may not make sense Kevin, but these are not the folks of whom we usually think about when we talk about hell.After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?DAVEH: Interestingly, you've quoted the chief judge (the antagonist) who was chiding Alma Amulek and while doing so, you have assumed that the chief judge quoted Alma correctly. However Kevin, that is an errant assumption, as the below quote shows...+[Alma 12:17] Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.+...Alma clearly taught that their torments were as a, indicating that Alma's explanation of fire and brimstone is a symbolic representation of hell.and their gtorment is as a lake of fire and brimstoneDAVEH: Apparently you've got a serious computer virus, Keving is infecting your posts! The wording here suggests an analogytorment is as a lake whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end...Again, clear symbolism that cannot be literally true. The two words is as plainly show this to be an analogy.sha ll have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second deathDAVEH: If there is any doubt as to the symbolic nature of hell, this surely puts it to rest by explaining what is meant by.that lake which burneth with fire and brimstonewhose smoke ascendeth up forever and everDAVEH: Another obvious literal impossibility that as an analogy makes sense.which lake of fire and brimst one is endless tormentespecially when it is explained as endless torment.the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast outDAVEH: Which pretty well explains the difference in venue.some will reside in heaven, and some won't. Effectively, those not allowed to dwell in heaven will be spiritually and severely self tormented eternally. FWIWYou forgot to mention some of the other BoM passages that when taken with the others pretty well reveal the symbolic nature of the fire and brimstone hell. Consider Nephi's comments...[2Ne 9:14] Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness. [15] And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. [16] And assuredly, as the Lord
[TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Judy:The question 'what is too difficult for God' is not the sort of question I'm given to asking. However, if I've asked a question too difficult for Conor then, I'd just ask that Conor take a pass. It is Conor's choice. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 08:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
:-) Slow down, Izzy, and read Lance's post again. He was saying that HE was the one with the cranial density problem. I think you understood my post because we have similar assumptions. Lance has a different set of assumptions. I was a little surprised that Lance could not understand my post, but I believe he is sincere when he says he does not understand it. The work is to try and figure out what assumptions he holds to that causes my post not to resonate with him. That is difficult for me to do at this point, given the lack of his response here. Lance is basically just saying he doesn't understand my post without doing the work of identifying what part of my post is the part that starts to lose him. I will keep looking out in future posts of his what it might be that causes he and I to approach our understanding of this subject in different ways, but until then, we can be respectful, patient, longsuffering, and work hard at communicating. :-) God bless you, sister. It greatly uplifted my spirit to hear that you found me quite lucid. Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own world where nobody understands me, but the Scriptures do teach that the spiritual man discerns all things yet he himself is discerned of no one. David Miller - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, in all kindness may I submit to you the possibility that YOU might be the one with the cranial density problem? I found DM's statement to be quite lucid. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, upon reading David's post below, exhibits 'cranial density' his own self. Though I'd thought we would be further ahead, we're not. Why not submit this to David Miller for a rewrite? He's good at that sort of thing :). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 11:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006
[TruthTalk] Creationism
Lance wrote: There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. I would say that EVERY believer in Jesus Christ must be a creationist. Would you disagree with this statement? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Kevin wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Hi Kevin. Why exactly are you convinced that there is a literal hell? Can you present an argument for a literal hell for us? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism
David:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this not to be a trick question. So then, yes. I am a teleological evolutionist thus making me 'that sort' of 'creationist'. Lucid? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 09:42 Subject: [TruthTalk] Creationism Lance wrote: There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. I would say that EVERY believer in Jesus Christ must be a creationist. Would you disagree with this statement? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
you have been decieved by the Devil DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to determine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion. Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly show the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth. whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke. which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels DAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important and pertinent information, Kevin + 35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels 37 And the only ones on wh om the second death shall have any power; + .This is referring to a small but special category of those who (denied the Holy Spirit after having received it) are referred to as sons of perdition. While this represents a tangent thread which is not relevant to our discussion, please note vs 37 which differentiates them from all the others as he only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. This may not make sense Kevin, but these are not the folks of whom we usually think about when we talk about hell. After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone? DAVEH: Interestingly, you've quoted the chief judge (the antagonist) who was chiding Alma Amulek and while doing so, you have assumed that the chief judge quoted Alma correctly. However Kevin, that is an errant assumption, as the below quote shows... + [Alma 12:17] Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will. + ...Alma clearly taught that their torments were as a, indicating that Alma's explanation of fire and brimstone is a symbolic representation of hell. and their gtorment is as a lake of fire and brimstone DAVEH: Apparently you've got a serious computer virus, Keving is infecting your posts! The wording here suggests an analogy torment is as a lake whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end ...Again, clear symbolism that cannot be literally true. The two words is as plainly show this to be an analogy. sha ll have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Psychology versus anything pastoral
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:58:34 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In my opinion, it is not "pastoral" if it is secular -- they are mutually exclusive ideas. That does not mean there is no value in the secular. I fully believe in the good work of research in this field (pyschology), There is much that we humans have in common -- Such asour fallenness because of the first Adam? but the reactions to any number of variables creates the demand we be viewed as unique. Generally speaking, there are five models in present day pyschology: psychophysiological, psychdynamic (Freud), behavorial (Watson), cognitive (Simon), and humanistic (Rollo mays, Rogers and Maslow) There are , in fact, over 200 expressions of or models of psychology -- many of them competing views. Which is it - five or over two hundred models of psychology? Whichever, it can't compete with the confusion of the supposedly sacred. The World Christian Database Denomination list shows there are 9,000 Christian denominations in the world and 635 of them in the USA and many of these are also competing views. Note that anything "divine" is not included. A course study on thefoundational aspects of modern day psychology will notinclude reference to anything divine or pastoral. In fact, anumber of models view "pastoral" or "divine" as problematic and to be avoided. I am not taking a stand for psychology per se but there are many believers who have a degree in sociology and who counsel in a secular setting. It is modern daypsychology that has challenged religion andnot the converse --- simple minded fundamentalist attacks aside. The above is an unnecessary slam JD and it is unloving. Just because one is willing to take God at His Word does not make them "simple minded" or put them in a"fundamentalist" file. I believe that where therapy does not involve pharmacology, it should be be pastoral in content. I also believe that much of what we call "mental illness" is not illness at all, rather the normal workings of the mind when it comes under catastrophic stress. Yes a mind that is full of fear and devoid of faith - but this is a spiritual issue. That person is like a city with broken down walls so that anything and everything comes and goes. I believe that thoughts are not the only things that account for psychological response - Maybe not but isn't this where the problem becomes apparent? Do you give your counselees scriptural advice and tell them it is possible to take their thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ? the other consideration is that of relationships. And that is where "religion" comes into the picture.Because of my belief in the above -- this business of communityis important because it has to do with our mental state - our very person. How so JD? Our very person is not a brain or even a mind. We are triune beings as originally created in God's image but God is One, He is not a "community" Infact,the content of "relating" is more important when the two considerations are compared. Man is fully formed as he is embrassed by the community (family, husband-wife, clubs, sport teams and , yes, churches.) Most cases of extreme "mental illness" have a commonality -- isolation from surrounding relationships -- especially isolation from demonstrable expressions ofa truine (or pluristic) God. Now what is the above all about? Never heard of it before and I certainly don't see it in God's Word. There is the principle of iron sharpening iron yes, but this is not the only way - God taughtMoses, David,and Paul His ways in solitary places. If that is true, then pastoral counseling is critical and every saint should be a pastor. Knowing that when we capture God, He consumes us , the pastoral "counselor" that is worthher salt is one who understands the difference between the knowledge of human actions and the love that can command those actions and find sense in that which is nonsensical. jd How does one do this? I understood victory to be when we allow God to transform us - what example do you have of one who "captured Him?" How does love command human actions in your opinion JD? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] How IYO does the "pastoral counseling" that you offerdiffer from the secular kind and what kind of problems are you confronted with JD? judyt On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:44:46 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes , I charge for the sessions -- $45 for an hour and 20 minutes. I try to work myself out of a job within 6 sessions but will "coach" (read:disciple) them afterwards. I used to offer the help for no charge -- no one took me serious until they were vested in the
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit. You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy? Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death. Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss.Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and fear
Judy, God's covenant with Abraham was not contractual in nature.His promise(s) in that case was sovereign and apart from Abraham's efforts. Ditto for us (Romans 3:28.) We share in the very same promise. The greek thing (eis) has everything to do with the discussion at hand your opinions on that subject aside. In the Galatians passage, we are immersed INTO Jesus Christ...and thus hid in Christ (Gal 3:26,27 and Col 3:3). Now, if you want to isolate a single biblical thought regarding judgment, be my guest - but I think the student/disciple is much better served as she considers all of scripture AND allows scripture to say what it says. Most of us fail to struggle with reconciling one passage with another. It is not reconciliation to prefer one passage and IGNORE the others. The result of such studies is a redactive theology that is meaningless (IMHO) jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD 2 Cor 5:10.11 is written by the same apostle as the scriptures you have posted below and believe me he never ever speaks out of both sides of his mouth ATST - this is our problem - not his because 2 Cor 5:10,11 was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it stands. Trying to mix scripture with metaphysics and philosophy is the problem here. This is akin to trying to mix oil with water; it is attempting to conform God's Living Word to some man's dead theology. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life - so we must not forget the ifs, ands, and buts; because all of God's covenants are conditional and there is not a thing wrong with his eyesight. We can not be walking in sin and walking in the righteousness of Christ at the same time. The condition for walking free from condemnation is walking after the spirit and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh When we choose carnal thinking and fleshly pursuits we make ourselves God's enemy which means we are not free from sin and where there is sin there is also judgment. As for this (eis) business and the ontology some refer to constantly - this has nothing at all to do with God's revelation and is best left in Greek antiquity with Aristotle and his Metaphysics judyt On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:23:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Col 3:3 -- our very lives are hid in Christ. God looks to the righteousness of Christ and it is in this righteousness that we are hidden. Christ's sacrifice is once and for all time -- emphasis here on once. It is offered only once because in that offering our sins are fully remitted (Heb 10:18). There can be no judgment , of the person, if there is no sin. And II Cor 5: 21 tells us that we have become the righteousness of God IN Christ -- a positional circumstance in this case. Gal 3:26-27 As many as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ. We are in (eis) the very ontology of Son of God and are becoming like Him in terms of faith and righteousness. Our personal judgment is in this circumstance. Col 1:23 We are holy, blameless and without reproach IN Christ. And, again -- all of this as if we were hidden in Him. Solo didache is not a hermeneutical rule of any meaningful consequence. The passage you cited must be considered in the light of scripture such as quoted above and others, perhaps even more to my point. I will continue the search. Such is my answer. jd 1John wrote: In Christ we are not judged. How do you reconcile this idea with the following passage? 2 Corinthians 5:10-11 (10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (11) Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. David Miller ---BeginMessage--- JD 2 Cor 5:10.11 is written by the same apostle as the scriptures you have posted below and believe me he never ever speaksout of both sides of his mouth ATST - this is our problem - not hisbecause 2 Cor 5:10,11 was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it stands. Trying to mixscripture with metaphysics and philosophy is the problem here. This is akin to trying to mix oil with water; it is attempting to conform God's Living Wordto some man's deadtheology. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life - so we must not forget the ifs, ands, and buts; because all of God's covenants are conditional and there is not a thing wrong with his eyesight. We can not be walking in sin andwalking in the "righteousness of Christ" at the same time. The condition for walking free from condemnationis "walking after the spirit and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh" When we choose carnal thinkingand fleshly pursuits we make ourselves God's
[TruthTalk] Love and fear
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, God's covenant with Abraham was not contractual in nature. His promise(s) in that case was sovereign and apart from Abraham's efforts. Not the whole truth JD. I know he and Sarah produced an Ishmael by works of the flesh; but what if Abraham had refused to "believe" God and leave UR? Without faith it is impossible to please Him - is this not a condition? In (Romans 3:28.) We share in the very same promise. Yes and we have the same fear and faith confronting us as Abraham did with the samespiritual consequences. The greek thing (eis) has everything to do with the discussion at hand Possibly the "in Christ" idea which I believe (eis) is BT's scholarly way of saying. your opinions on that subject aside. In the Galatians passage, we are immersed INTO Jesus Christ...and thus "hid in Christ" (Gal 3:26,27 and Col 3:3). Let's see "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:26(same condition) and Col 3:2 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" IOW be spiritually minded which is a faith action and is also a condition. Now, if you want to isolate a single biblical thought regarding judgment, be my guest - but I think the student/disciple is much better served as she considers all of scripture AND allows scripture to say what it says. Judgment is part of what it says JD and there is much more than one single scripture, in fact Jesus spoke about judgment more than he spoke about heaven. Most of us fail to struggle with reconciling one passage with another. It is not "reconciliation" to prefer one passage and IGNORE the others. The resultof such studies is a redactive theology that is meaningless (IMHO) jd I don't have to do the above JD becauseI have nothing to hide, nothing to protect, and no theologian to defend. I like all scripture equally, every Word of God because these are life to those who find them and health to all their flesh. -- Original message --From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD 2 Cor 5:10.11 is written by the same apostle as the scriptures you have posted below and believe me he never ever speaks out of both sides of his mouth ATST - this is our problem - not his because 2 Cor 5:10,11 was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it stands. Trying to mix scripture with metaphysics and philosophy is the problem here. This is akin to trying to mix oil with water; it is attempting to conform God's Living Word to some man's dead theology. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life - so we must not forget the ifs, ands, and buts; because all of God's covenants are conditional and there is not a thing wrong with his eyesight. We can not be walking in sin and walking in the "righteousness of Christ" at the same time. The condition for walking free from condemnation is "walking after the spirit and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh" When we choose carnal thinking and fleshly pursuits we make ourselves God's enemy which means we are not free from sin and where there is sin there is also judgment. As for this (eis) business and the "ontology" some refer to constantly - this has nothing at all to do with God's revelation and is best left in Greek antiquity with Aristotle and his Metaphysics judyt On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:23:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Col 3:3 -- our very lives are hid in Christ. God looks to the righteousness of Christ and it is in this righteousness that we are hidden. Christ's sacrifice is once and for all time -- emphasis here on "once." It is offered only once because in that offering our sins are fully remitted (Heb 10:18). There can be no judgment , of the person, if there is no sin. And II Cor 5: 21 tells us that we have become the righteousness of God IN Christ -- a positional circumstance in this case. Gal 3:26-27 As many as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ. We are "in" (eis) the very ontology of Son of God and are becoming like Him in terms of faith and righteousness. Our personal judgment is in this circumstance. Col 1:23 We are holy, blameless and without reproach IN Christ. And, again -- all of this as if we were hidden in Him. Solo didache is not a hermeneutical rule of any meaningful consequence. The passage you cited must be considered in the light of scripture such as quoted above and others, perhaps even more to my point. I will continue the search. Such is my answer. jd1John wrote: In Christ we are not judged. How do you reconcile this idea with the following passage? 2 Corinthians 5:10-11 (10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (11) Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made
Re: [TruthTalk] Hello
I'm not currently Catholic, no. When I started reading the Bible, it didn't take me long before I started seeing a lot of contradictions between the teachings of the Catholic church and the Bible. Considering that the Bible is the best source of information we have on Jesus and his life, I decided to take the Bible's word for it. However, I was born and raised catholic, was a practicing catholic for the first 18 years of my life, and I went to catholic school for 8 years. So, I consider myself pretty aware of the catholic perspective, from a real life point of view. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Perhaps this is a difference of philosophy since:I presume that Judy sees God as transcendant from his creation and DH sees him as part of the creation. Judy sees a God who is outside of time who created time and the law of physics DH sees a god who was procreated at some point in time (in the preexistance) and then organized matter (not create matter)Is this correct?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:What is a physical impossibility for God? DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.The book you refer to DH is the fantasy of CSL, I go to a higher authority which tells me that illness is not a blessing; it also reveals to me who it is thatimplements the curse but not without God's permission I might add. I think the same can be said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be. How is that DH? I don't make up things that paint God into any corner; I am speaking of things that He has done already; things he has recorded in His Word by His Spirit.You asked the question.What is a physical impossibility for God?and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for God, Judy?Only if God were a man with limitations but since He is not a man that He should lie and He is not a man who is limitedby fleshly weakness all He has to do is speak to the rock and it will move just as He spoke the worlds into existence. I prefer to believe God operates within the laws of his creation. His son was born under the Mosaic Law but even He circumvented physical laws constantly by walking on water and commanding a storm along with rebuking death.Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary.God is transcendent DH and his adversary is well aware of who is boss.Judy Taylor wrote: Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept themin the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heavenand keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 hours andcaused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravensfeed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Title: The radical consequences of justification, by T.F. Torrance Please do not forward entire web pages to the list. If you desire to shareinformation from web pages, especially those thatcontain graphics, menus, _javascript_, etc., please send a link to the web page rather than copying the entire page. There are numerous technical reasons for this policy that I can explain in private for those interested. There arealsolegal copyright reasons and web etiquette reasons why sharing links rather than copying web pages is the preferred method of sharing published web pages. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that astronomy is something that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I checked, astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating of the universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomy classes. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a little strange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method was completely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universe looks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure also predict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same models work well for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quick example. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is at least a million years old. I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, the underlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God's creation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis, and it's a point that remains the same regardless. Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. I find macro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things I wanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails. DaveH: Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary. I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's, and the laws of physics that run our universe are also His creation. As His creations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that God performs his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but I think it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws of physics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand. How is it possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they were full? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physically impossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out the window for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify a computer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can change this universe as much as he wants. DaveH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due. I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attribute things to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences do happen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was a while back, so I don't remember the details exactly. About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this list is mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from the congregation were coming up to the front and sharing their testimony. One lady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She was originally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late teens, early twenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two. Some crisis happened in her life that left her very much in search of God. She prayed that God would help her figure things out and in about five minutes a pair of LDS missionaries showed up at her door. She took it as a sign, and shortly there after became mormon. I've heard many example of things like this helping people become christians as well. I'm sure there are example like this from just about every religion. However, they can't all be acts of God. They only way that is possible is if God is just as happy with people being mormon as he is with people being christian. However, I think that the mormon missionaries I have talked with would disagree with
Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Title: The radical consequences of justification, by T.F. Torrance I apologize David. Lance - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 13:36 Subject: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment ** Please do not forward entire web pages to the list. If you desire to shareinformation from web pages, especially those thatcontain graphics, menus, _javascript_, etc., please send a link to the web page rather than copying the entire page. There are numerous technical reasons for this policy that I can explain in private for those interested. There arealsolegal copyright reasons and web etiquette reasons why sharing links rather than copying web pages is the preferred method of sharing published web pages. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
I found DM's own explanation of what he thinks to be quite clear. Maybe you could ask him to restate it in Canada-ese? :-) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:01 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Iz:Firstly, I WAS referring to myself and, NOT to David. Will you, kindly, restate David's position in your own words? I know that there are numerous 'readings' of Genesis 1 - 11. The writers of Gen 1 - 11 meant something in what they wrote. There exists a reality concerning all of the matters addressed in Gen 1 - 11. There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 00:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, in all kindness may I submit to you the possibility that YOU might be the one with the cranial density problem? I found DM's statement to be quite lucid. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, upon reading David's post below, exhibits 'cranial density' his own self. Though I'd thought we would be further ahead, we're not. Why not submit this to David Miller for a rewrite? He's good at that sort of thing :). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 11:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? 'ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT BY GOD WILL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT GENESIS CHAPTERS 1 - 11' Have we just been provided with a perfect standard for determining who is/who is not 'taught by God'? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 07:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
[TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Gary, are you disagreeing with Judy's statement that 'truth is Jesus Christ'? There is a wide latitude of meaning in this statement, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about. Jesus said, I am the ... Truth. Does it not also follow that the truth is Jesus Christ? Jesus also said, every one that is of the truth heareth my voice (John 18:37). Consider also: 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 (30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. One last consideration. Jesus Christ is the logos. Is it not also true that the logos is Jesus Christ? Help me out here Gary. Where's your beef? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
DAVID? - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 14:46 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? I found DM's own explanation of what he thinks to be quite clear. Maybe you could ask him to restate it in Canada-ese? :-) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:01 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Iz:Firstly, I WAS referring to myself and, NOT to David. Will you, kindly, restate David's position in your own words? I know that there are numerous 'readings' of Genesis 1 - 11. The writers of Gen 1 - 11 meant something in what they wrote. There exists a reality concerning all of the matters addressed in Gen 1 - 11. There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 17, 2006 00:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, in all kindness may I submit to you the possibility that YOU might be the one with the cranial density problem? I found DM's statement to be quite lucid. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, upon reading David's post below, exhibits 'cranial density' his own self. Though I'd thought we would be further ahead, we're not. Why not submit this to David Miller for a rewrite? He's good at that sort of thing :). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 11:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? 'ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT BY GOD WILL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT GENESIS CHAPTERS 1 - 11' Have we just been provided with a perfect standard for determining who is/who is not 'taught by God'? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To:
Re: [TruthTalk] Love and fear
John in blood red. -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, God's covenant with Abraham was not contractual in nature. His promise(s) in that case was sovereign and apart from Abraham's efforts. Not the whole truth JD. I know he and Sarah produced an Ishmael by works of the flesh; but what if Abraham had refused to "believe" God and leave UR? Without faith it is impossible to please Him - is this not a condition? I am not talking about God's pleasue. I am talking about his work of justification. Of course He is not pleased until we fully understand His message and live His life. You ignore Gen 15:5,6. I am talking about the very thing Paul entertains in Romans 3:28. At what point in the Genesis story was Abraham deemed justified, Judy? I say his pronouncement of "righteousness by substitution" occurred when he stepped outside his tent, looked to the skies and believed. And this conclusion is really a statement of scripture. So it is the whole truth of the matter. In (Romans 3:28.) We share in the very same promise. Yes and we have the same fear and faith confronting us as Abraham did with the samespiritual consequences. I certainly hope so. The greek thing (eis) has everything to do with the discussion at hand Possibly the "in Christ" idea which I believe (eis) is BT's scholarly way of saying. Huh?? Why do you say this? your opinions on that subject aside. In the Galatians passage, we are immersed INTO Jesus Christ...and thus "hid in Christ" (Gal 3:26,27 and Col 3:3). Let's see "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:26(same condition) and Col 3:2 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" IOW be spiritually minded which is a faith action and is also a condition. Do you know the diff between indicative and imperative? Now, if you want to isolate a single biblical thought regarding judgment, be my guest - but I think the student/disciple is much better served as she considers all of scripture AND allows scripture to say what it says. Judgment is part of what it says JD and there is much more than one single scripture, in fact Jesus spoke about judgment more than he spoke about heaven. I spoke of a "single biblical thought" and not of a single passage of scritpure. Most of us fail to struggle with reconciling one passage with another. It is not "reconciliation" to prefer one passage and IGNORE the others. The resultof such studies is a redactive theology that is meaningless (IMHO) jd I don't have to do the above JD becauseI have nothing to hide, nothing to protect, and no theologian to defend. I like all scripture equally, every Word of God because these are life to those who find them and health to all their flesh. Hopefully, such will manifest itself sometime in the near future. jd ---BeginMessage--- ---BeginMessage--- JD 2 Cor 5:10.11 is written by the same apostle as the scriptures you have posted below and believe me he never ever speaksout of both sides of his mouth ATST - this is our problem - not hisbecause 2 Cor 5:10,11 was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it stands. Trying to mixscripture with metaphysics and philosophy is the problem here. This is akin to trying to mix oil with water; it is attempting to conform God's Living Wordto some man's deadtheology. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life - so we must not forget the ifs, ands, and buts; because all of God's covenants are conditional and there is not a thing wrong with his eyesight. We can not be walking in sin andwalking in the "righteousness of Christ" at the same time. The condition for walking free from condemnationis "walking after the spirit and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh" When we choose carnal thinkingand fleshly pursuits we make ourselves God's enemywhich means we are not free from sin and where there is sinthere is also judgment. As for this (eis) business and the "ontology" some refer to constantly - this has nothing at all to do with God's revelation and is best left in Greek antiquity with Aristotle and his Metaphysics judyt On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:23:52 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Col 3:3 -- our very lives are hid in Christ. God looks to the righteousness of Christ and it is in this righteousness that we are hidden. Christ's sacrifice is once and for all time -- emphasis here on "once." It is offered only once because in that offering our sins are fully remitted (Heb 10:18). There can be no judgment , of the person, if there is no sin. And II Cor 5: 21 tells us that we have become the righteousness of God IN Christ -- a positional circumstance in this case. Gal 3:26-27 As many as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ. We are "in" (eis) the very ontology of Son of God and are becoming likeHim in terms of faith and righteousness.Our personal
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?Who do you, believe to be God?Father Son Holy Ghost Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
I am sorry I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no "literal" Hell. Are you saying then that it is not a place? It is not physical? When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion.If this "literal" Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that suffer this mental anguish be? Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer? Can there be both joy sorrow in the same place? Will they be in a physical place?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you have been decieved by the DevilDAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to determine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion.Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal HellDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly show the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth.whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and everDAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke.which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless tormentDAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever.DC 76: 36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angelsDAVEH: By taking the passage out of context, you miss some important and pertinent information, Kevin+35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels37 And the only ones on wh om the second death shall have any power;+.This is referring to a small but special category of those who (denied the Holy Spirit after having received it) are referred to as sons of perdition. While this represents a tangent thread which is not relevant to our discussion, please note vs 37 which differentiates them from all the others as he only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. This may not make sense Kevin, but these are not the folks of whom we usually think about when we talk about hell.After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone?DAVEH: Interestingly, you've quoted the chief judge (the antagonist) who was chiding Alma Amulek and while doing so, you have assumed that the chief judge quoted Alma correctly. However Kevin, that is an errant assumption, as the below quote shows...+[Alma 12:17] Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.+...Alma clearly taught that their torments were as a, indicating that Alma's explanation of fire and brimstone is a symbolic representation of hell.and their gtorment is as a lake of fire and brimstoneDAVEH: Apparently you've got a serious computer virus,
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young.In your mind then when God created Adam presumably as a man did he just look old or was he actually old? I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be takenliterally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, theunderlying story still stays the sameIs there anything internal in the chapter that tells you this may be figurative? Why just the first chapter? Why not figurative seven days of rain as in Gen 7? Why not take the seven days that the doves were sent out as figurative? Gen 8 When Laban chased after Jacob for seven days?Gen 31:23 Should these be millions? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that astronomy issomething that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I checked,astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating ofthe universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomyclasses. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a littlestrange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method wascompletely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universelooks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure alsopredict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same models workwell for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a reasonabledoubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quickexample. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds ofthousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is at least amillion years old.I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possiblethat God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is inactuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally,I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be takenliterally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, theunderlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God'screation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis,and it's a point that remains the same regardless.Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. I findmacro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things Iwanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails.DaveH: Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his Adversary.I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's,and the laws of physics that "run" our universe are also His creation. As Hiscreations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that Godperforms his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but Ithink it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws ofphysics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand. How isit possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they werefull? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of thelaws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physicallyimpossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out thewindow for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify acomputer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can change thisuniverse as much as he wants.DaveH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attributethings to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences dohappen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was awhile back, so I don't remember the details exactly.About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this listis mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from thecongregation were coming up to the front and sharing their "testimony". Onelady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She wasoriginally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late teens, earlytwenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two. Some crisishappened in her life that left her very much
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I think there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
the creation of mankind continues to this day !!! # 12 is coming into this world in about 30 minutes .. PapaJohn is outahere!! PTL jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Mille r-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The Future of TruthTalk
Dear TruthTalk members, As many of you know, I have not had time to moderate TruthTalk for a number of years. We have had some problems recently on the listthat has beenespecially trying for many of us, especiallythe past moderator. Another TruthTalk member has volunteered to moderate the list, but given recent events, I am very reticent to consider this option. Right now, I have to confess to the list that I am seriously considering taking down the list. I don't regret having had this list for these last 8 years, but priorities in our lives change and I feel that my priority is toward other situations in my life which concern my family, my church, my business, etc. I also have a desire to start writing position papers on various issues, and TruthTalk basically takes away my time from doingsuch things. I suppose in some ways I feel that I have outgrown TruthTalk, and in other ways I just need a break for awhile. This would be a lot easier decision to make if TruthTalk was somehow dying on the vine with few posts being made. The truth is just the opposite of that situation.Interest continuesconcerningengagingin dialogue here. I will be continuing to moderate TruthTalk for the next week or so as if TruthTalk weregoing to continue, but I am still very seriously considering bringing an end to TruthTalk. If any of you have any wisdom or suggestions about TruthTalk continuing, perhaps without my leadership or involvement, please share it with me. I'm open to alternatives, but I do think my time with TruthTalk, even in an administration capacity or lurking capacity, is being brought to an end here this week. Most of all, I want everyone to know what is stirring in my heart so you are not surprised or shocked if I do take down this list at the end of the week or if there is some other drastic change that happens with the list. God bless you all, David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] The Future of TruthTalk
David M, how does this list work? Do you have a very large computer that automatically does it? I do not recall using yahoo to join up. --Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..'truth is Jesus Christ'||There is a wide latitude of meaning in this statement
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..("I came into the
world, to testify to the
truth."
..actually, there'sa
certainlatitude in this,
above,deniedbythat, below)
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:23:19 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..'truth is Jesus
Christ'||There is a wide latitude of meaning in this
statement
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..(e.g.) JC himself thinks David
Moseswrote thetruth about JC himself, Bro
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:56:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..("I came into
the world, to testify
to the truth."
..actually, there'sa
certainlatitude in this,
above,deniedbythat, below)
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:23:19 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..'truth is Jesus
Christ'||There is a wide latitude of meaning in
this statement
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
...I was born [so you and any other's like you, Pilate, who want to do so, can come to terms with me like my favorite ancient Poets did:)] On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:16:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
I AM the Way, the Truth, and the
Life
No man comes to the Father BUT by ME
John 14:6
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:09:05 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..(e.g.) JC himself thinks David
Moseswrote thetruth about JC himself, Bro
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:56:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..("I came into
the world, to testify
to the truth."
..actually, there'sa
certainlatitude in this,
above,deniedbythat, below)
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:23:19 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:..'truth is Jesus
Christ'||There is a wide latitude of meaning in
this statement
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
"1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning- 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered. 7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan. 10 The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away. 11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. 12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. 13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants. 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble. 16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children. 17 May the favorof the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us yes, establish the work of our hands." ©Moses (Ps 90) On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:22:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...I was born [so you and any other's like you, Pilate, who want to do so, can come to terms with me like my favorite ancient Poets did:)] On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:16:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd ---BeginMessage--- attachment: blankmast.jpg attachment: home150.jpg free3.gif Description: GIF image attachment: COsend150.JPG attachment: search150.jpg attachment: issues150.JPG attachment: publish150.JPG attachment: donate150.JPG attachment: contact150.JPG attachment: update150.JPG copyright.gif Description: GIF image torrance.htm|Image=4 Description: Binary data ---End Message---
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
copywright info duly noted, brother bro -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning- 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered. 7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan. 10 The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away. 11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. 12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. 13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants. 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble. 16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children. 17 May the favorof the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us yes, establish the work of our hands." ©Moses (Ps 90) On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:22:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...I was born [so you and any other's like you, Pilate, who want to do so, can come to terms with me like my favorite ancient Poets did:)] On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:16:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
it's quite possible that both Pilate I think that's trueabout JC On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:18:36 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life
Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued
It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Only necessary for the non inspired versions JD The KJV has no Copyright ie: Freely, freely, you have received.. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:45:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: copywright info duly noted, brother bro From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning- 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered. 7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan. 10 The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away. 11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. 12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. 13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants. 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble. 16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children. 17 May the favorof the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us yes, establish the work of our hands." ©Moses (Ps 90) On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:22:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...I was born [so you and any other's like you, Pilate, who want to do so, can come to terms with me like my favorite ancient Poets did:)] On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:16:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
the KJV is inspired ?? -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only necessary for the non inspired versions JD The KJV has no Copyright ie: Freely, freely, you have received.. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:45:38 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: copywright info duly noted, brother bro From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning- 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered. 7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan. 10 The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away. 11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. 12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. 13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants. 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble. 16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children. 17 May the favorof the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us yes, establish the work of our hands." ©Moses (Ps 90) On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:22:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...I was born [so you and any other's like you, Pilate, who want to do so, can come to terms with me like my favorite ancient Poets did:)] On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:16:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..You, [Pilate, like Moses David,] are right in saying I am a king On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:40:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 18:37 NIV: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:51:27 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Pilate may have been as opinionated as you are Gary - He knew nothing about Truth His most famous line: "What is Truth?"Your identifyingyourself with him clears up some issues. On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:48:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it's quite possible that both Pilate I think that's trueabout JC On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:18:36 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life
Re: [TruthTalk] creation continued
Congratulations JD; I assume you are the proud Grandpa What a blessing from the Lord. Welcome Claire!! On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:51:09 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is a girl -- 6 pounds 6 ounces -- 17 3/4 inches long Claire Wilken
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
precisely--that's exactly the point: in your dualistic view allbooks but the KJVare lies On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:50:13 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only necessary for the non inspired versions..The KJV has no Copyright..
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth (your presumptive dualismis characterized bytwo absolutes bothrooted in arrogance) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:02:49 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Pilate]knew nothing about Truth
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Pilate did not recognize the Truth when it stoodright there before him His wife had more sense but he didn't heed her warning As for you Gary Olson - you are way out there some place I will not go there On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:18:36 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (your presumptive dualismis characterized bytwo absolutes bothrooted in arrogance) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:02:49 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Pilate]knew nothing about Truth
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.
He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our day has again become so rampant, not only in the Roman Church, but in Liberal and Evangelical Protestantism, e.g., the emphasis upon existential decision as the means whereby we "make real" for ourselves the kerygma [proclamation] of the New Testament, which means that in the last resort our salvation depends upon our own personal or existential decision. That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ. It is Justification by Grace alone that guards the Gospel from corruption by "Evangelicals," "Liberals," and Romans alike. So Torrance is also a Calvinist at heart who is resting in Calvin's "doctrine of election" in spite of all the big theological words and high talk... On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:43:32 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the recent article posted by Lance from Torrance, the theologican says this: "Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the popular minister where everything centers on him, and the whole life of the congregation is built round him. What is that but Protestant sacerdotalism, sacerdotalism which involves the displacement of the Humanity of Christ by the humanity of the minister, and the obscuring of the Person of Christ by the personality of the minister?" amen. We have here a well worded warning to the mega church industry that the Christ, His very person, just might be lost to a pattern of worship that denies opportunities for authenticity and spontaneous participation by the attendee. It can be argued that such 'worship services" fly in the face of such passages as Eph 5:18,19. There is a bonding and a closeness that takes place in a small group that is not possible in the mega assemblies. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth (why'dPilate's wifeinstruct him: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man" ?) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pilate did not recognize the Truth
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth(female intuition at its finest, eh, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man"?) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His wife had more sense
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth (E.g, ..As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pilate did not recognize the Truth when it stoodright there before him ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Should be obvious - she loved her husband enough not towant innocent blood on his hands On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:46:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (why'dPilate's wifeinstruct him: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man" ?) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pilate did not recognize the Truth
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
No actually she suffered many things in a dream and she knew he was a "just" man; God does speak to womenyou know - surprise!, surprise! On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:00:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth(female intuition at its finest, eh, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man"?) On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:26:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His wife had more sense
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
myth (i know who'llspeaktruthfully toardent feminists through truthfulvoices like Moses') On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:28:21 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..God does speak to womenyou know..
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
..there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
but apparently he loved her less than he loved JC while biblical evidence suggests he didn't pay a bit of attention to her, which plainlymeans (inyour scenario) that he never perceived her so-called'love' as amounting to anything but a lie, which alsodrives homethe main point: 'truth is Jesus Christ' is a philosophical hound that don't hunt biblically On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:19:20 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should be obvious - she loved her husband ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him... Matt 27NIV
