DAVEH: Ayou are beginning to realize my point, Izzy.
Likewise, if the torment of hell is not a literal burning lake of
brimstone, then perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of
the Lord can also reside within one's heart.
ShieldsFamily wrote:
DH says perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart. Interesting Pain can reside within, but not God? Surely the LDS god can not reside in ones heart because as a man with a Body he just will not fit!Dwell in your heart? 1835 DC 130:3
,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
but it does logically support the idea
that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.DAVEH:
I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one, DavidM.
David Miller wrote:
The burning bush
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:03
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
but it does logically support the idea
that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.DAVEH:
I'd
Lance wrote:
Do you truly believe (of course you do)
that your logic, the logic of Scripture and
God's logic are all the same
Of course!
Logic is logic, whether it is employed by Scripture, by God, or by me. The
logic is all the same.
David Miller
--
Let your speech be always with
Yours?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
12:00 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply
DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of
using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of
creating an unquenchable fire
is a bit weak if that unquenchable
fire (burning bush) has been quenched.
ShieldsFamily wrote:
Yours?
It has not been quenched. It is alive
today in my heart. izzy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:03
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a
burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an
unquenchable fire is a bit weak
And I would think that it would be easy for you to answer why you take
part of the same sentence/verse figurative and another literal.
I asked; you avoided, because there is no logical reason to do so, just
an Emotive one!
--- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: I would think anybody
DAVEH: Was there a question somewhere in there, Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
And I would think that it would be easy for you to answer why you take
part of the same sentence/verse figurative and another literal.
I asked; you avoided, because there is no logical reason to do so, just
an
but it does logically support the idea
that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.
DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one,
DavidM.
David Miller wrote:
The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning
06 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 ask
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?
jt: I started to but lost interest. I prefer to spend
time on studying the real thing rather than someone
Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that
particular trick, eh? iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:14
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
:14
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Doesn't that teach us something about God's
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
DAVEH: Only if the bush is
still burning.
David Miller wrote:
DaveH, I agree
interesting eh, DavidM?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||Judy Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800..
I don't make up things that paint God into any
corner..I go to a higher authority
I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg
like this to a public list
Can you help me with it DavidM?
It is not conversation that's for sure
It is not communication either
Is this written to helpencourage or
instruct?
What is the point in taking one line out of it's
setting to
uthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
interesting eh, DavidM?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||Judy Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800..
I don't make up things that paint God into any
corner..I go to a higher authority
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a
msg like this to a public list
Can you help me with it DavidM?
It is not conversation that's for sure
It is not communication either
Is this written
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't make up things that paint God into any
corner;DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it,
Judy. You seem to think God can do anything,
yet he seems to do things the hard way from our
perspective.
jt:
myth (as alluded
to,somethoughtful readersmaywanna explore the
relationship betw jt's notions:'truth is JC' is 'Jesus wasting
[her] time'in pursuitof truth--how about you,
Bro?)
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
1. Jesus said, "I am
i know
so which of the three utterances do you
like most, 1., 2. or 3.?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35 -0500 "David
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I like what Judy
said.
---
for ref:
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To:
..or is it #4?
(take all the time in the world,
Bro,esp if youreally most likeher notion thatJC
himselfwasted his)
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||Judy Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45
-0800..
I don't make up
All out of context, just a mumbo, jumbo of words but I
guess it makes
no difference when one is way out
there
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:09:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i know
so which of the three utterances do
you like most, 1., 2. or 3.?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:26:35
..actually, on #4, DaveH may lean a
little toward it himself
..but what do you
think,like, couldhe jt be onto somethingbetter than
wastingtime with JC?
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:29:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..or is it #4?
(take all the time in the world,
Bro,esp if
jt: It was necessaryif mankind were to
be redeemed eternally because without the
shedding of blood there is no remission of
sin.
DAVEH: ??? Jesus could not forgive sin without shedding of blood? Is that what you
believe?
if we were privy to the Jewish
sacrificial system we would understand
Random acts of insanity. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:41
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for
believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour
per
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More than one observation: There are plenty of
reasons for believing that "day" in the creation
account does not mean a 24 hour period.
1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this
Because God's Word is true and every man a liar along
with the fact that God was the only
one there at the time and He has given us a written
record through his servant Moses.
This may be "simple minded" and "fundamentalist" to
your frame of reference but I can
guarantee I won't have to eat
when Gary and Slade moderated?
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More than one
Lance why don't you get your own list together and
organize it from your perch up there in the
frozen North. David, Perry, Dean et al are doing
their best under trying conditions. Do you really
think they need an "expert opinion" hovering over their
shoulders constantly? A little sensitiity
evers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they?
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
More than one observation: There a
The pastor's comments in blood red.
-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The pastor's comments in blood
red.
JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that
"day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period.
1. First , the Hebrew
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture.
How do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets
scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts
that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as
surely as anything
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do
: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see
Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed
believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they?
- Original Message -
From
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands.
Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is
she
Sent: March 18, 2006 11:26
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition
of
believer. I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term
Christian in a broad sense of those who claim
by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing.
- Original Message -
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
David:Please be ev
they?- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that &quo
I don't make up things that paint God into any
corner;
DAVEH: Here's the problem as I see it, Judy. You seem to think God
can do anything, yet he seems to do things the hard way from our
perspective. If he could circumvent law, then why did he put his son
through the horror of dying on the
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this
in whatever fashion suits you.
Lance
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
