Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Terry: The Bible says that God is angry with the sinner every day, and that is true. Caroline: The bible says God is angry with sin and sin within people mostly. Or that He is angry with national rebellion. Rarely does it ever say God is angry with the person. The people Jesus was most angry with were those who ought to know better but weren't practicing mercy and justice. He spoke about being more righteous than the Pharisees and being holy but he never called any of the sin-filled women he met whore. They were sisters and daughters to him. He ate with them. He could separate their acts from their personhood. Terry: The Bible says that He hated Esau, and that is true. Caroline: And how was His hate expressed? It's neat to consider as Esau and Jacob were twins. Esau married at least 3 women, had a large family and lived in Seir which was their Promised Land. When Jacob returned, Esau could gather an army to meet him which shows he had community standing. He initially refused Jacob's gifts because he had plenty. The two brothers could not live in the same area because they had too much men and animals. Jacob had to leave home, work as a slave, wrestle with God. His children ends up as slaves in Egypt, wander the desert, fight for every inch of the Promised land, live there in anarchy and terror, suffer under bad kings, get exiled, return to devastated land and temple, end up under Roman rule. On Israel's way to their Promised Land, they passed by Seir and God told Moses that this was land given to Esau by Him, that these people were their brothers, that they can not start a war here and they had to pay for everything they used. When we hate someone we wish them all sorts of evil. God can't plan or do evil because there is no darkness in Him. His hate is different from ours. The Edomites (like lots of other nations) later came under judgment. But Esau himself had a pretty decent life. The phrase Jacob I loved but Esau I hated meant God chose Jacob's line to be the one He will actively shape into the nation that He will step into the world through. They were forged as steel and iron are forged. That is love. Esau was left alone like a wild bush. That is hate. And it was decided before they were born and could do anything to earn either love or hate. That is destiny. Terry: Do you think that possibly there is a time when God feels that His love has been rejected long enough, and His love turns to anger and then finally to hate? Caroline: Sure, in Jeremiah 3, He had enough and divorced Israel. Then, a few short verses later, He said, Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD, I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful, decalres the LORD, I will not be angry forever. We can not out love God or beat Him in faithfulness. He is more constant in His love than either Hosea or Job. So, ultimately, no. -- 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] Loving and Merciful God of Justice
DAVEH: Why is the Bible necessary, Perry? Is it not possible for one
to get a clear understanding of the evidence of God's nature from his
creations
Paul
says that God is evident in all of creation, so no man is without
excuse.
.From my LDS perspective, I don't have to rely on just nature,
or just the Bible as you have suggested is adequate. To limit
my view as you suggest would put me in a position to view God as the
ogre you referred to before.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, if you were to stop reading that heretical Momron
literature and forming your own personal opinions of how you would like
for God to be, and to begin to study the Bible in light of itself, not
extrabiblical LDS references, you would come to a clear understanding
of what God has revealed to us about his nature.
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Loving and Merciful God of Justice
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:37:36 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave wrote:
I think one of the biggest /problems
/(if that is the proper word to use) I have with Protestantism is their
view of hell and damnation. I've said it before, but for some of you
who are a bit new to TT, I'll give you a brief explanation. It seems
to me that Protestants are far too eager to toss those who don't agree
with their perspective of religion on the ash heap of hell, so o
speak. Or rather, they seem to pleasure in the thought that God will
forever punitively torture those who fail to walk that narrow path and
enter the strait gate. I just don't feel comfortable believing in a
God who relishes torture, Lance. I prefer to believe God is loving,
merciful and would that all his creation benefit from their existence.
Dave, if I may comment on your perspective of "protestants"... I do
not find your perception at all be consitent with the Christians
("protestants", if you prefer, although "protestants" does not
encompass the whole of Christendom)
DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. From my perspective, it is
Protestantism that has drawn me to TT. If I wanted to talk to any
Christian, I could simply chat with the LDS folks I meet at church.
I have known throughout my life. I know
that God wants none to perish, and would like for all to come to Him.
However, he is just at the same time, and those who refuse God will
have an eternal life apart from Him.
DAVEH: I fully agree with what you've said so far, Perry. What
concerns me is how Protestants view what happens to those who those who
do not accept Jesus.
It is their own choice. Paul says that God
is evident in all of creation, so no man is without excuse.
DAVEH: That's pretty lame in my opinion, Perry. So.are you saying
that a person who lived without ever hearing of Jesus (say 1500 years
ago in China) should be a believer of Jesus because of the evidence of
God in what has been created? Simply appreciating the wonders of the
world God created makes one a Christian, so to speak? Is that
what you are suggesting, Perry? Ordo you think that the tongue
needs to confess Jesus to be a believer in Jesus?
I have never met a protestant that truly finds pleasure in the
thought that unbeleivers will spend eternity apart from God, whatever
that may be like. Nor have I ever met ANY Christian who believes that
God relishes torture.
DAVEH: You are a late comer to TT.
However, I have heard that from unbeleivers
who are looking for reasons to reject God.
The bottom line is that God IS loving and merciful, and would like
for all to come to Him, but he also is just. None of us are worthy,
Dave as Paul said...none is without sin.
DAVEH: Agreed. But for those who do not accept Jesus, do you not
belief that men will be *forever *physically tortured for a sin they
committed in mortalitya fixed time frame? How does such a
momentary transgression bring such a long term physical punishment?
Furthermore, it is not the transgression that demands the physical
torture that lasts forever, but it is the failure to accept Jesus that
separates those who receive that punitively painful punishment from
those who get all the treasures of heaven. The whole Protestant
concept of hell pivots on simply accepting Jesus or not. And that
concept of hell is one of either pleasure, or torture. Does a simple
mental attitude (that may not be the way to best express it) justify
forever being in pleasure vs forever being physically tortured? To me
it seems like a rather unloving and unmerciful way to dispense justice.
And, no man is without excuse, because god
is evident in creation. At the final call, either we wil have beleived,
or we will not have
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, We are talking obtusely here. The little 'g' god, the god of Mormonism is NOT the big 'G', the God of the Bible. You are confusing the two. They are not the same. Your little 'g' god may be a warm fuzzy parent to you, but don't confuse him with the big 'G' God of the Bible. I refer you to God's Holy Word for the details. You won't find the meat of the truth in the LDS works. And all you will find in the little 't' temple is occultic rights and symbols, like the clasps, tokens, signs, and penalties of Masonry. You live in a cauldron of deceit. DAVEH: Awe shucks, Perry.I'm only on TT for an hour or two a day. :-) Many have been sent to you and are STILL being sent to you to tell you the truth. You have rejected and continue to reject them all. Not all of them are warm and fuzzy. Some yell, some scream, some wave underwear, and some put flyers on your car, and some are in error. But they all they are desparate for your soul to be saved. DAVEH: Some of them pick a strange way to attempt the task. Go back and look at what you just wrote, Perry. Does any of that sound like the way to promote the Gospel of Jesus? And you wonder why I reject those tactics.? Now, lets see. If you are judged for believeing not in the Jesus and God of the Bible, but in the false jesus and a false god of Mormonism, and consequently are consigned to hell for eternity (whatever hell might actually turn out to be, not what you or anyone else might imagine it to be), whose fault is that? DAVEH: For those who wish to consign me to hell for my beliefs, let me just reiterate them. I believe Jesus is the Son of our Heavenly Father, and came to this earth in a physical body of flesh and blood, died and atoned for my sins, and was resurrected with a glorified and exalted physical body of flesh and bones. Nowfrom your perspective, Perrydo I need to believe anything more than what I've stated I believe above to be saved? IF so, specifically what does one need to believe to be saved that I do not believe? On the other hand, if believing in Jesus is all that is required for salvation, then why do you think I should worry about attributing fault to anybody? You have been told the truth over and over. YOU have chosen to reject it. DAVEH: Wow! Should rejecting truth as proclaimed on TT be a worry to anybody who believes in Jesus??? If so, perhaps I'm not the only TTer is in jeopardy. Do you expect to blame someone else because YOU, having heard the truth over and over, chose to reject it? DAVEH: Your drivel is tiring, Perry. FTR..I have NOT rejected Jesus. I just reject some of the things I hear on TT that are purported to be truth. If you think I've rejected Jesus, Perry.please list specific details of what I said. If you aren't able to do so, then please consider refraining from making such accusations. Get real. Your false hope lies with a false jesus and false god that cannot save you, regardless of how liberal they are at the false judgement you are deceived into believing. Read the Bible, Dave. It tells it all. DAVEH: Thank you for providing a good example of a purported truth being fostered on TT. Why would you assume the Bible tells all, Perry? That's simply nonsense. If it did, then why is there so much bickering and arguing on TT? Does nobody here read the Bible??? Before you tell me to read the Bible, Perry, why don't you tell the other TTers to do likewise. Once the doctrinal disagreements end, then we could assume everybody has read the Bible, eh! Become like a child, forget the lies you have been spoonfed from infancy. Grapple with the REAL GOD and JESUS! Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. DAVEH: ??? Huh.Do you mean it isn't a free gift after all. =-O Not with the false hope of a little g god that will save everybody. You have asked about what I think Hell is. I beleive that Hell is separation from God for eternity. It may feel like a fire burning in you that cannot be quenched. DAVEH: Thank you for answering my question, Perry. I do find your answer very interesting, as it mirrors my belief. I did not realize you shared the LDS concept of hell. Perhaps I've been a bit of an influence on you, eh! :-) In all the years I've been on TT, that is the explanation I've given. And guess what.I've been metaphorically tarred and feathered for expressing such. (Relax Perry...You are amongst friends, so I don't expect that to happen to you!) :-) So.If you agree with the LDS perspective, Perrywhy are you bothered by my perception of hell? Hmnow that I think about it, maybe you aren't bothered. I suspect Kevin is though! Anyway, at least I can count you as an ally on TT when it comes to the lake of fire. From your answer, you apparently do not believe it is absolutely a literal lake of fire we are tossed into by God. (Note---That's not to say you reject the notion that it could
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
Terry Clifton wrote: Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Read the Bible, Dave. It tells it all. Perry Sounds like good advice, Dave. I wouldn't dismiss it lightly. Terry DAVEH: OK Terry..rather than dismiss this lightly, let me hear your explanation of hell. Do you believe it is a literal lake of fire into which those who don't believe in Jesus are tossed to suffer a physical punitive torture forever as do some TTers? Ordo you believe as Perry and I, that.. Hell is separation from God for eternity. It may feel like a fire burning in you that cannot be quenched. .and that the accounts of it were symbolic? In fairness to Perry, he implied that he simply doesn't know if it is literal or symbolic, because from his reading of the Bible his understanding of theology is not perfect. I know you've read the Bible, Terry...so I'm very interested in knowing your perspective on hell. -- ~~~ 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] Narrow way not loving?
Hi JD Thanks for the words of encouragement. I come from a Baptist background and individual soul freedom is one of our distinctive. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"? Hang onto your faith in these matters, Caroline. You could not be closer to the truth of the New Covenant Realtionship than you are as expressed in the post below. May I add two passages of scripture ? They will ones you are very familar with but perhaps should be included in this discussion. I Cor 8:1-3 is a passage that explains the critical contrast between a doctrinal "knowing" and a relational knowing. It is sad that there are those who claim to "know" but refuse to admit that they have not yet known as they ought. The reason so many ignore this passage has much to do with the realization that they are not in control. If you have a relationship with the Master, a personal and vital relationship, then I don't have much to say about it. Actually, Romans 14:4 is a doctrinal statement that presses this individual relationship to the Master and disembowels the Giant Turd* we call Legalista. He no longer has rule over us. We individually answer to God and He will make us to stand !! A second passage is the prophetic description (Jere 31:31-33) of the coming New Covenant, describing that Covenent as a personal and individual positioning complete with the realization that we will no longer have need of the kind of teaching that is creedal and ex-cathedra in nature: ".no more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord' for they all shall know me ..." What so many do not understand or refuse to understand, is that the Gospel has nothing to do with the right church, the right creed, the right doctrine but everything to do with loving God, loving self and loving those around us ( the neighbor). *turd : usually vulgar : a contemptible person JDIn a message dated 3/17/2005 5:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, we all have the mind of Christ and so can make judgments about all kinds of things but am not subject to man's judgment (1 Cor. 2:15-16). John wrote that the anointing I received from Jesus remains in me and I do not need anyone to teach me. His anointing teaches me about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit, I should remain in him. (1 John 2:27) The Person I met and who spoke to me (once audibly, many times through the bible and internally) has revealed Himself as love and the fullness of God dwells in him and He is the final revelation of God. God is Love. All our theology and thinking must submit to a person who is real, alive, and can be encountered. Countless others from simple nuns like Theresa of Avila to mathematicians like Pascal and theologians like Bonhoeffer have encountered the Living God and came to the same conclusion. Love, Caroline - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:54 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not " loving"?The difference here is between those that have been regenerated and those that have not. How does one teach a dead man?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, you, Jt, and Kevin are all locked in a time capsule. You do most of your thinking/citing/interpreting from within. It (the capsule) is Greek in origin with some refurbishing done by the enlightenment rationalists. I used to believe that the one who could/should extricate himself from this static framework was David. I now see that it is 'Not gonna happen' GBSr. As Mike Myers used to say after picking a topic, any topic 'discuss amongst yourselves'
Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25
Iwas raiseda very proper Evangelical. 4 Spiritual Laws. Sola scriptura and sola fide. But life is a journey and change is the only constant. Not long ago, I emailed a former pastor and said I'm fast becoming a universalist! Please email back reasons why I shouldn't be! He had a good laugh. The number one passage people bring up is Matthew 25 about eternal punishment and eternal life. Talbott says "eternal" here means long time but not...eternal (just as some would say a day is not a day and all does not mean all but those are debates for another time!!). He makes agood argument on the Greek term but, as someone else who has read the book said, it was not entirely compelling. I think the key to Matthew 25 is the epistle of 1 John. The whole epistle helps but thekey verse is 1 John 1:2 "The life appeared: we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." Eternal life is Christ Jesus. It is the incarnation. It is about us in Him and He in us. It is right now and more fully later. Even now, we are seated in the heavenly realms at the right hand side of our Father in Jesus Christ our brother, saviour and Lord. Right now we have eternal life because we have Him. Getting eternal life is getting Jesus. Getting eternal punishment is getting the other guy. That parable does not contradict other teachings in the bible about salvation and God's love. While some will use this parable as saying hell is eternal just as heaven is eternal because it fits their theology, this parable no longer have to be the sticking point for universalism. The gates of hell can be stormed and the strong man's home can be plundered becasue he can be tied up."O LORD, you brought me up from sheol" Psalm 30:3 "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in sheol, you are there." Psalm 139:8 Universalismhave biblical support and can be formulated in an internally coherent theology. There areseveral such systems now: exclusivism, inclusivism, annihilation, universalism.What resonates with your spirit? Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?"The system that you choose depends on how you answer Jesus' question. I thought I'd throw that in as most likely I can't spend too much time on TT and will be here less. Love and God bless, Caroline
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
When and where did I say that? Have no idea what you are referring to 'g' Please explain. jt On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:36:01 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: and acc to you, he's into dualism..what kind? On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:49:07 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The ONLY character we are to be stamped by is that of Christ.
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Amen! I know a hard heart is not good - Jesus said that this is why men put away their wives and it is why Moses gave a bill of divorcement. However, I see an 'evil heart of unbelief' spoken of more along with stiff necked and stubborn rebellion.Since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" - It is true that a heart that is hardened to God's Word is a heart that is hardened to the God of the Word also. jt On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:36:24 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A heart that is hardened to Gods Word is a heart that is hardened to God. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonLance Muir wrote: Yes Terry, I would. In actuality, with some, this does not happen. I do not know why. By the by, education, as you and some others cite as problematic from time to time, is not the issue. The issue is the heart. Good point.
Re: [TruthTalk] Terri Shiavo
David Miller wrote: Did any of you get a chance to see Nightline's interview with Michael Shiavo? I'm wondering if any of you support Michael Shiavo's desire not to allow Terri's parents and brother to keep feeding her. Are any of you surprised that he has turned down $10 million and $1 million offers to let the parents have custody of her? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Michael very likely took a vow to love his wife until they were separated by death. I am not too surprised that he did not take the money. I am surprised that he wants to kill someone that he took for better or worse. Terry -- 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] Narrow way not loving?
Caroline Wong wrote: Terry: The Bible says that God is angry with the sinner every day, and that is true. Caroline: The bible says God is angry with sin and sin within people mostly. Or that He is angry with national rebellion. Rarely does it ever say God is angry with the person. The people Jesus was most angry with were those who ought to know better but weren't practicing mercy and justice. He spoke about being more righteous than the Pharisees and being holy but he never called any of the sin-filled women he met whore. They were sisters and daughters to him. He ate with them. He could separate their acts from their personhood. Terry: The Bible says that He hated Esau, and that is true. Caroline: And how was His hate expressed? It's neat to consider as Esau and Jacob were twins. Esau married at least 3 women, had a large family and lived in Seir which was their Promised Land. When Jacob returned, Esau could gather an army to meet him which shows he had community standing. He initially refused Jacob's gifts because he had plenty. The two brothers could not live in the same area because they had too much men and animals. Jacob had to leave home, work as a slave, wrestle with God. His children ends up as slaves in Egypt, wander the desert, fight for every inch of the Promised land, live there in anarchy and terror, suffer under bad kings, get exiled, return to devastated land and temple, end up under Roman rule. On Israel's way to their Promised Land, they passed by Seir and God told Moses that this was land given to Esau by Him, that these people were their brothers, that they can not start a war here and they had to pay for everything they used. When we hate someone we wish them all sorts of evil. God can't plan or do evil because there is no darkness in Him. His hate is different from ours. The Edomites (like lots of other nations) later came under judgment. But Esau himself had a pretty decent life. The phrase Jacob I loved but Esau I hated meant God chose Jacob's line to be the one He will actively shape into the nation that He will step into the world through. They were forged as steel and iron are forged. That is love. Esau was left alone like a wild bush. That is hate. And it was decided before they were born and could do anything to earn either love or hate. That is destiny. Terry: Do you think that possibly there is a time when God feels that His love has been rejected long enough, and His love turns to anger and then finally to hate? Caroline: Sure, in Jeremiah 3, He had enough and divorced Israel. Then, a few short verses later, He said, Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD, I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful, decalres the LORD, I will not be angry forever. We can not out love God or beat Him in faithfulness. He is more constant in His love than either Hosea or Job. So, ultimately, no. -- --- Thank you, Terry -- 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] Terri Shiavo
There may be more to this story than meets the eye. I didn't see the Nightline interview but I did hear an interview with Terri Shiavo's brother on the radio yesterday in which he spoke of new evidence that is coming to light after 15yrs years. Apparently they found a full body scan taken three weeks after she went into the coma which shows multiple broken bones and mended fractures so abuse on the part of the husband issuspected along with the fact that he did not take long to move on with his life; within a year he was living with another woman by whom he now has two children. Michael is wanting to get Terri's death over with so that he can have her body cremated, or at least this is how it appears.Why should it matter to him whether or not her parents and brother keep her alive if they are willing to take responsibility?He can divorce her and go on with his life can't he? jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:02:46 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael very likely took a vow to love his wife until they were separated by death. I am not too surprised that he did not take themoney. I am surprised that he wants to kill someone that he tookfor better or worse. Terry David Miller wrote:Did any of you get a chance to see Nightline's interview withMichael Shiavo? I'm wondering if any of you support Michael Shiavo'sdesire not toallow Terri's parents and brother to keep feeding her. Are any ofyousurprised that he has turned down $10 million and $1 million offersto letthe parents have custody of her? Peace be with you. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
Dave Hansen wrote: Terry Clifton wrote: Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, Read the Bible, Dave. It tells it all. Perry Sounds like good advice, Dave. I wouldn't dismiss it lightly. Terry DAVEH: OK Terry..rather than dismiss this lightly, let me hear your explanation of hell. Do you believe it is a literal lake of fire into which those who don't believe in Jesus are tossed to suffer a physical punitive torture forever as do some TTers? Ordo you believe as Perry and I, that.. Hell is separation from God for eternity. It may feel like a fire burning in you that cannot be quenched. .and that the accounts of it were symbolic? In fairness to Perry, he implied that he simply doesn't know if it is literal or symbolic, because from his reading of the Bible his understanding of theology is not perfect. I know you've read the Bible, Terry...so I'm very interested in knowing your perspective on hell. -- You really need to consult the experts on this one,Dave. They can give it to you in Greek and Hebrew. All I can offer is my understanding, which is... Hell is where lost souls go at death. It is a dark place where you can feel but you cannot see. Whatever passes for a body in Hell will be crawling with worms, either internally or externally, in constant torment. The only sounds will be the screams of other lost sinners and whatever noise that demons make. It is a holding place until Jesus returns in judgment. At that time, Hell will be emptied and it's contents thrown into a lake of fire, possibly like molten lava, but since the soul is eternal, it continues to suffer through eternity. In short, Hell is a bad place, and once you know how bad it is, you get some idea of how serious it is to play games with Jesus. It is a terrible thing to incur God's wrath. I guess you would say that I take it very literally. Hope this helps. Terry
[TruthTalk] Unifying around God's Word
I believe I've mentioned in the past that I attend a weekly Bible Study known as BSF or Bible Study Fellowship which is international and non-denominational.To complete all of the lessons takes 7yrs (I am in my 4th year); the studyis structured along the lines of a college course and it's focus is entirely upon Christ and His Word. We are not to talk about books, tapes, denominations, personal issuesetc. Although there is a prayer list that we can contribute to. This past Tuesday I learned that there are 122 different denominations and sects represented in this Fellowship and the amazing thing is thatsuch love and peace is evident. My group is mostly black but we are one bloodin Christ. The same could be true on TT if we stopped exalting men, sects, Gk words, theologies, etc. and allow God to be God in our midst. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards
Lets not forget the fact that DNA evidence positively demonstrates that the Indians have absolutely no inheritance from Hebrew people. None. Zilch. Nada. Check out this web page, and especially the video near the end of the page: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html In this non-technical video, Mormon and non-Mormon scholars and scientists talk about the recent scientific discoveries and their implications regarding the reliability of the Book of Mormon. These honest Mormons admit that the information reveals that the major premise behind the Book of Mormon is false - thereby making Joseph Smith a false prophet. Order the video and share it with your Mormon friends! Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:44:09 GMT David wrote: Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so there must be more of a connection established to the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards. Peace be with you. David Miller. BLAINE: Describing the connection I am making between art depicting men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites, Jaredites, and Mulekites as only imaginary is, I would say, very cynical. You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO proof tells me he ever even lived. You can't even tell me what the man looked like. Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what? All you have to go on is your imagination. Yet you accept him unquestioningly. How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons, who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are proof that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of Meso-America? At least we know from BoM descriptions of them that they were fair, large of stature, intelligent, and had a language that was unreadab le except by inspired seers. That is a lot, I would say. We also see huge quantities of evidence that a people did live in Meso America that apparently fits these descriptions, along with having cement houses, barley, etc., as stated in the BoM--all provable now by archeological findings that in the time of Joseph Smith were unprovable. Faith tells me there is a great deal to come. Bible experts and archeologists have had two thousand years to uncover the present wealth of knowledge largely substantiating the Bible, yet you complain that in 200 years we have not acquired a comparable wealth of exact information regarding these peoples. I say this is just plain cynicism on your part. -- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote: ... why not focus on the bearded men facsimilies found in Meso-Amewrica? Neither you nor Kevin apparently want to discuss this highly meaningful archeological fact ... The existence of beards is not unheard of among Indians. Consider the following description of Membertou, an Indian chief in Canada who died in 1611 at over 100 years old: From: http://www.danielnpaul.com/Mi'kmaqGrandChiefMembertou.html Biard wrote that Membertou: was the greatest, most renowned and most formidable savage within the memory of man; of splendid physique, taller and larger-limbed than is usual among them; bearded like a Frenchman, although scarcely any of the others have hair upon the chin; grave and reserved; feeling a proper sense of dignity for his position as commander. Note that even babies sometimes have beards. :-) See: http://www.secretlair.com/babieswithbeards/babies/index.shtml You also have to consider that statues do not necessarily depict what is common place, but rather what is idealized. Gods are depicted often with beards by primitive cultures. The Pharaohs wore false beards, even Egyptian Queens have worn them and have been depicted in statues with them. Statues sometimes depict dragons with beards too. The Egyptians have thousands of statues with animal heads such as dogs and falcons (e.g., remember the god Horus reproduced in your sacred writings?). Are you going to argue that these represent what the people of an ancient time once looked like? Norman wrote: So how are the numerous sculptures and the terracotta portraits of heavy bearded 'Indians' explained? Considering their prominence, there had to be another dominant racial type in the high cultures of Mesoamerica that no longer exists. I hope you can see the erroneous logic used here. Such works of art do not necessitate another dominant racial type that is now extinct. Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here
Re: [TruthTalk] Unifying around God's Word
I totally concur with the intent that underlies this post. But, not for the reasons given. I trust that you understand. Love, Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2005 08:52 Subject: [TruthTalk] Unifying around God's Word I believe I've mentioned in the past that I attend a weekly Bible Study known as BSF or Bible Study Fellowship which is international and non-denominational.To complete all of the lessons takes 7yrs (I am in my 4th year); the studyis structured along the lines of a college course and it's focus is entirely upon Christ and His Word. We are not to talk about books, tapes, denominations, personal issuesetc. Although there is a prayer list that we can contribute to. This past Tuesday I learned that there are 122 different denominations and sects represented in this Fellowship and the amazing thing is thatsuch love and peace is evident. My group is mostly black but we are one bloodin Christ. The same could be true on TT if we stopped exalting men, sects, Gk words, theologies, etc. and allow God to be God in our midst. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:49:41 -0600 "Caroline Wong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iwas raiseda very proper Evangelical. 4 Spiritual Laws. Sola scriptura and sola fide. But life is a journey and change is the only constant. Not long ago, I emailed a former pastor and said I'm fast becoming a universalist! Please email back reasons why I shouldn't be! He had a good laugh. The number one passage people bring up is Matthew 25 about eternal punishment and eternal life. Talbott says "eternal" here means long time but not...eternal (just as some would say a day is not a day and all does not mean all but those are debates for another time!!). He makes agood argument on the Greek term but, as someone else who has read the book said, it was not entirely compelling. Why would you become a 'universalist' Caroline? Constant change may be the way of the world but if you take a good look the more it changes the more it stays the same. Jesus OTOH is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So all that matters really is which side you are on. Also who is Talbott? Surely you are not going to allow him to have the final say concerning your eternal destiny. I think the key to Matthew 25 is the epistle of 1 John. The whole epistle helps but thekey verse is 1 John 1:2 "The life appeared: we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." Eternal life is Christ Jesus. It is the incarnation. It is about us in Him and He in us. It is right now and more fully later. Even now, we are seated in the heavenly realms at the right hand side of our Father in Jesus Christ our brother, saviour and Lord. Right now we have eternal life because we have Him. Oh no, not again. I see you have the "comprehensive view" Caroline. The BIG problem with this from my perspective is the every day nuts and bolts. It's all well and good to make these great sweeping statements - Some years ago I was involved in what they call the "Faith Movement" This group was really big on what they called "positional truth" and we would meditate onthings like "keep looking down, you're seated with Christ in the heavenlies" - soI understand, it can be real heady. Getting eternal life is getting Jesus. Getting eternal punishment is getting the other guy. That parable does not contradict other teachings in the bible about salvation and God's love. While some will use this parable as saying hell is eternal just as heaven is eternal because it fits their theology, this parable no longer have to be the sticking point for universalism. The paramount problem is "Jesus getting us" are we dying to the flesh so that we can serve Him in newness of life? Or are we giving Him some kind of lip service while our heart remains far from Him. The gates of hell can be stormed and the strong man's home can be plundered becasue he can be tied up."O LORD, you brought me up from sheol" Psalm 30:3 "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in sheol, you are there." Psalm 139:8 Caroline Psalm 30:3 more accurately reads "O Lord thou hast brought up my soul from the grave" (a spiritually dead person's soul is int he grave); In Psalm 139David is saying that there is noplace where one can hide from God. As for the strongman's house, it is not plundered untilthe strongman is tied up first. So, how in your understanding is this done?? Universalismhave biblical support and can be formulated in an internally coherent theology. There areseveral such systems now: exclusivism, inclusivism, annihilation, universalism.What resonates with your spirit? Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?"The system that you choose depends on how you answer Jesus' question. Wishful thinking Caroline though the question is relevant because there are a lot of different Jesus' out there. In fact the term anti-christ also means "in place of" I thought I'd throw that in as most likely I can't spend too much time on TT and will be here less. Love and God bless, Caroline What a shame, I've enjoyed your time here. Grace and Peace, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25
Hi Caroline Wong, glad to have you aboard. You bring a new perspective to the list. Thanks for the challenge. A few months ago I sent an article to Lance, written, I believe, in 1949, the title being Universalism and Election. Its author is T.F. Torrance, who is himself not a universalist. His article was written in response to J.A.T. Robertson who was a universalist and had written a fairly compelling case for universalism. I would like to suggest that you get that article from Lance (knowing him as I do, I know he still has it and would be oh so willing to pass it along to you). Your first read of Torrance will leave you wondering how his position differs from classical universalism: read it again -- and again. It is election to adoption in Christ that distinguishes the two: What about the ones who refuse their election; what is their end? Torrance writes, "No doubt that is what the godless man wants above all,to escape from the eternal love of God. ButGod's love is eternal, and God's love has been once and for all enacted as an event that divides between love and what is anti-love. Love will not let go. Even when aman has made his bed in hell God's hand of love will grasp him there. To choose finally and for ever to say "No" to Jesus is to be held in a hell of one's own choosing and making. It is not God who makes hell, for hell is the contradiction of all that is of God. This is the horror of the great darkness that came upon Gethsemane and Calvary, that by decision, God risked the happening of the incredible, that men should still choose to contradict the utmost work of love, even in justifying the ungodly. That they didchoose to do that at Calvary is a ghastly fact, and in that fact the Cross unmasks the bottomless dimension of sin in the human heart. The wholeBible stands aghast at this vast mystery of iniquity." I will leave you with that as a teaser. I hope you will want to read the rest of Torrance's work to see what he considers to be the problems presented in Robertson's universalism. In closing I would like to state the obvious and then a thought or twoas it relates to that upon which wemay all agree: there is no good reason for not believing in Jesus Christ. Right? That, it seems to me, even on TT, is safe enough to say. Well, for no good reason some do refuse to believe. And it seems to me that they may go to hell who make this refusal. But we dare not point to God our fingers ofblame for this. The only way humans can perhaps change the destiny provided us in Christs election and our eternal adoption in his person, is to finally refuse the reconciliation accomplished by him in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. In other words, hell isto forever refuse hisongoing mediation in ascended glory on our behalf. As unfathomable as it sounds, this, it seems to me,is a real possibility. But this grounds reprobation not in Gods will but in our own. This is what Paul calls the "mystery of iniquity," an irrational uncertainty whichdoes not originate from above -- no,God loves us and will never let us go; rather, it finds its source and ground down here, somewhere close I fear, somewhere very close to home. Greetings, Bill - Original Message - From: Caroline Wong To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25 Iwas raiseda very proper Evangelical. 4 Spiritual Laws. Sola scriptura and sola fide. But life is a journey and change is the only constant. Not long ago, I emailed a former pastor and said I'm fast becoming a universalist! Please email back reasons why I shouldn't be! He had a good laugh. The number one passage people bring up is Matthew 25 about eternal punishment and eternal life. Talbott says "eternal" here means long time but not...eternal (just as some would say a day is not a day and all does not mean all but those are debates for another time!!). He makes agood argument on the Greek term but, as someone else who has read the book said, it was not entirely compelling. I think the key to Matthew 25 is the epistle of 1 John. The whole epistle helps but thekey verse is 1 John 1:2 "The life appeared: we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." Eternal life is Christ Jesus. It is the incarnation. It is about us in Him and He in us. It is right now and more fully later. Even now, we are seated in the heavenly realms at the right hand side of our Father in Jesus Christ our brother, saviour and Lord. Right now we have eternal life because we have Him. Getting eternal life is getting Jesus. Getting eternal punishment is getting the other guy. That parable does not contradict other teachings in the bible about salvation and God's love. While some will use this parable as
Re: [TruthTalk] Loving and Merciful God of Justice
If the length of this exchange caused some to move on without reading the full exchange, perhaps a second look will be worth the effort. Much food for thought regarding hell, torture, the singleness of the sin event contrasted with the eternity of the punishment.
My only frustration with Dave's response is that it includes an insistence that (1) "protestants" are those who are not Mormon and (2) that all "protestants" think alike. It seems to me that if we are going to borrow a word from the non-Mormon world, we should include the attached definition instead of making up our own --- it is confusing to those of us who are not "protestant" by historic definition.
John
In a message dated 3/18/2005 12:14:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Why is the Bible necessary, Perry? Is it not possible for one to get a clear understanding of the evidence of God's nature from his creations
Paul says that God is evident in all of creation, so no man is without excuse.
.From my LDS perspective, I don't have to rely on just nature, or just the Bible as you have suggested is adequate. To limit my view as you suggest would put me in a position to view God as the ogre you referred to before.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, if you were to stop reading that heretical Momron literature and forming your own personal opinions of how you would like for God to be, and to begin to study the Bible in light of itself, not extrabiblical LDS references, you would come to a clear understanding of what God has revealed to us about his nature.
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] Loving and Merciful God of Justice
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:37:36 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave wrote:
I think one of the biggest /problems /(if that is the proper word to use) I have with Protestantism is their view of hell and damnation. I've said it before, but for some of you who are a bit new to TT, I'll give you a brief explanation. It seems to me that Protestants are far too eager to toss those who don't agree with their perspective of religion on the ash heap of hell, so o speak. Or rather, they seem to pleasure in the thought that God will forever punitively torture those who fail to walk that narrow path and enter the strait gate. I just don't feel comfortable believing in a God who relishes torture, Lance. I prefer to believe God is loving, merciful and would that all his creation benefit from their existence.
Dave, if I may comment on your perspective of "protestants"... I do not find your perception at all be consitent with the Christians ("protestants", if you prefer, although "protestants" does not encompass the whole of Christendom)
DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. From my perspective, it is Protestantism that has drawn me to TT. If I wanted to talk to any Christian, I could simply chat with the LDS folks I meet at church.
I have known throughout my life. I know that God wants none to perish, and would like for all to come to Him. However, he is just at the same time, and those who refuse God will have an eternal life apart from Him.
DAVEH: I fully agree with what you've said so far, Perry. What concerns me is how Protestants view what happens to those who those who do not accept Jesus.
It is their own choice. Paul says that God is evident in all of creation, so no man is without excuse.
DAVEH: That's pretty lame in my opinion, Perry. So.are you saying that a person who lived without ever hearing of Jesus (say 1500 years ago in China) should be a believer of Jesus because of the evidence of God in what has been created? Simply appreciating the wonders of the world God created makes one a Christian, so to speak? Is that what you are suggesting, Perry? Ordo you think that the tongue needs to confess Jesus to be a believer in Jesus?
I have never met a protestant that truly finds pleasure in the thought that unbeleivers will spend eternity apart from God, whatever that may be like. Nor have I ever met ANY Christian who believes that God relishes torture.
DAVEH: You are a late comer to TT.
However, I have heard that from unbeleivers who are looking for reasons to reject God.
The bottom line is that God IS loving and merciful, and would like for all to come to Him, but he also is just. None of us are worthy, Dave as Paul said...none is without sin.
DAVEH: Agreed. But for those who do not accept Jesus, do you not belief that men will be *forever *physically tortured for a sin they committed in mortalitya fixed time frame? How does such a momentary transgression bring such a long term physical punishment? Furthermore, it is not the transgression that demands the physical torture that lasts forever, but it is the failure to accept Jesus that separates those who receive that punitively painful punishment from those who get all the
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
In a message dated 3/18/2005 12:15:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry writes to Dave: You won't find the meat of the truth in the LDS works. Actually, it is better said "You won't find the meat of the truth in ... works." JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Unifying around God's Word
I don't Lance, please explain. jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:24:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I totally concur with the intent that underlies this post. But, not for the reasons given. I trust that you understand. Love, Lance From: Judy Taylor I believe I've mentioned in the past that I attend a weekly Bible Study known as BSF or Bible Study Fellowship which is international and non-denominational.To complete all of the lessons takes 7yrs (I am in my 4th year); the studyis structured along the lines of a college course and it's focus is entirely upon Christ and His Word. We are not to talk about books, tapes, denominations, personal issuesetc. Although there is a prayer list that we can contribute to. This past Tuesday I learned that there are 122 different denominations and sects represented in this Fellowship and the amazing thing is thatsuch love and peace is evident. My group is mostly black but we are one bloodin Christ. The same could be true on TT if we stopped exalting men, sects, Gk words, theologies, etc. and allow God to be God in our midst. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It is one thing to spank your kid and send him to his room for the night. It is another to toss him into a boiling cauldron knowing that he will be screaming in torment due to physical pain forever. If any Christian wanted to do that to his child.I would question their sanity as a parent AND a Christian. You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomesrebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. DAVEH: My comment about any Christian wanting to do that to his child was not referring to spanking, but rather to using excessive punishment for a child's transgression. When you punish (not that you would ever need to, DavidM!) any of your children, does your punishment reflect the magnitude of the crime (so to speak)? IOWIf one of your kids disobeys one of your requests to read do something simple, would you then take a baseball bat to them and wail on them to within an inch of their life and continue doing such every day for a year? Of course not! Yet many Protestants believe God will do much worse than that. DaveH wrote: Would you be willing to forever physically (and punitively) torture him for such an action? No, but I recognize that the reason I am unwilling is because of my own unrighteousness. DAVEH: ??? Are you sure you want to go there, DavidM? In other words, if you were (more) righteous, you would be more brutal? This is sounding more like Muslim fanaticism than Christianity. DaveH wrote: Do you think you inflictingphysical torturous injury on him every second of his eternalexistence would be just punishment for simply saying noto Jesus? Yes. DAVEH: Thank you for your brutal honesty, DavidM. At least there is no question where you stand on this matter. IMHO, the punishment does not fit the crime. I cannot fathom a loving parent who would be so cruel. DaveH wrote: If Protestants want to belief eternal physical torture is the method God uses to dispense his love and mercy in the name of justice.forgive me for being unsympathetic to such beliefs. You confuse the issue again. God's execution of his wrath and judgment is not a dispensing of love and mercy. His love and mercy is manifested in what he did in sending his Son Jesus Christ, and again his love and mercy is manifestedin how he bestows forgiveness upon those who believe upon him. At the same time, his judgment remains true and right against those who have rejected his Son Jesus. DAVEH: It is my opinion that those who reject the Lord will in turn be rejected by him. Effectively, that rejection will distance them from the Lord's presence and love. I just don't see why any Christian would think the Lord would physically and punitively literally toss them into a burning lake to torture them forever. Why is such brutality needed by God? I don't see why it makes sense to anyone who believes God is a loving parent.rather it makes God seem like the ogre Perry mentioned. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ 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] Eternal Judgment
In a message dated 3/18/2005 7:17:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomes rebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Bill Taylor wrote: The point of Jesus' statement had to do with the unwillingness of the religious establishment to repent and accept his teaching as truth. They were steadfast in their error, yet convinced they were right and needed no correction. That problem is still with us today. I agree, Bill, but I'm not sure we have the same people in mind in regards to the religious establishment. I consider the religious establishment to be guys like N.T. Wright and T.F. Torrance, and perhaps their ardent disciples. We agree that the problem is still here with us, but we probably disagree about who is teachable and who is not. I consider myself to be very teachable, and so do most people who know me. However, the older I get, the more informed opinions I have, and the expression of opinions is often deemed to be unlike a child. In fact, many consider any form of teaching whatsoever to be reflective of an unteachable person. Although I do teach from time to time, my heart is still very much like a child in regards to the Lord and following him. Bill Taylor wrote: If that is cause and effect then I'm with you. Actually, I was talking about the relationship between those who do not appreciate the use of Scripture to correct and instruct one another (e.g., Lance), and the disbelief of those same people that a man of God may be perfect. I was talking about cause and effect in regards to the 2 Tim. 3:16-17 passage teaching that the Scriptures being used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (the cause) results in the effect of a man of God being perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Do you believe this pasage of Scripture, Bill, or would you argue that we should not take this passage literally, or that we need to think in non-linear terms about it, or that we can only understand it if we shake off the effects of the enlightenment project that are upon our thinking processes? Does my reductionistic approach to understanding this passage offend you? 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] Eternal Judgment
More enlightenment from JD: (I think Ill go take a bath now.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:31 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment Actually, Romans 14:4 is a doctrinal statement that presses this individual relationship to the Master and disembowels the Giant Turd* we call Legalista. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards
David wrote: Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so there must be more of a connection established to the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards. BLAINE: Describing the connection I am making between art depicting men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites, Jaredites, and Mulekites as only imaginary is, I would say, very cynical. Skeptical would be a more accurate word than cynical to describe my perspective. I do not consider the book of Mormon to be a historical book. I consider it a novel, an imaginery account that draws upon several sources. My word imaginery was not reflective of the connection you were making, but of the Nephites themselves. I hesitated to insert the word, but I wanted to communicate to you that the lack of a historical reality that exists in my mind concerning the Nephites. Blaine wrote: You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO proof tells me he ever even lived. Au contraire. The proof of the Bible is that we have historical men who have testified to what is recorded there. The Bible is filled with a genealogical basis going back to the very first man Adam. To argue that the Bible is myth would be to argue that the Jews of today do not exist. In the Jewish people, we find a culture and life as described in the writings of the Bible. This is not true for the book of Mormon. The people it speaks about are imaginary. It claims they once existed but then got wiped out. The Bible does not proceed by this method. The Bible speaks about its people in real terms and continues to give us promise concerning them. I can look all over the world, find Jews scattered just as the Bible says, also see them being called back to their land, just as the Bible says. I can read about the customs and rituals handed down to them in the Bible, and I can find these people still doing them. Even in Africa, there are tribes who continue such practices. Blaine wrote: You can't even tell me what the man looked like. Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what? All you have to go on is your imagination. Yet you accept him unquestioningly. I would not say that I accept him unquestioningly. I have a healthy skepticism toward what I read in the Bible too. As for his physical characteristics, I don't care much about that. I do care about the characteristics of his personality and person. Blaine wrote: How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons, who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are proof that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of Meso-America? I am different because I consider all possible explanations, not just the ones that I hope to find. I approach the Bible this way too. Blaine wrote: At least we know from BoM descriptions of them that they were fair, large of stature, intelligent, and had a language that was unreadable except by inspired seers. That is a lot, I would say. But the statutes you pointed us to showed a man of small stature with a beard. Doesn't that contradict the Book of Mormon? Blaine wrote: Bible experts and archeologists have had two thousand years to uncover the present wealth of knowledge largely substantiating the Bible, yet you complain that in 200 years we have not acquired a comparable wealth of exact information regarding these peoples. I say this is just plain cynicism on your part. Most archaeologists do not go about trying to establish the Bible. Some have even attempted to criticize the Bible as myth based upon archaeology. The problem is that the Bible is so rooted in historical reality that such attempts, while gaining momentum at times in the short run, always fail in the long run. Your complaint about needing more time for the evidence to come to light is the same argument that evolutionists rely upon for their theories. One must also consider the possibility that no matter how much time one has, the evidence does not support the conclusion desired. This is not cynicism. This is healthy skepticism. 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.
[TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology
- Original Message - From: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 09:38 Subject: A little unexpected theology Hey there. Thought you would like a little section I came across in a novel Carry Me Home, that I was reading. One more reason to entertain the idea of universalism!! I'll try and give it to you as best I remember. The novel is about a young man who had a high fever as a child and is at about a 10 year old leval mentally even thought he's in his early 20's. His brother has gone to the Phillipines in WW2 along with several of their childhood buddies. One of the young men is killed and the funeral is held in the small town. After the funeral, the young man is having trouble sleeping and his Dad comes in to tuck him in. He asks the dad Is Louis in heaven? Dad: Funerals always make people ask questions about things like that I knew that Dad hadn't answered my question, so I asked it again. Is Louis in heaven? Dad: Well, we know that if we love Jesus and live a good life then we will go to heaven Son: Is it a good life to drink lots of Schlitz, talk about titties and fish in the mill pond? Cause that's what Louis liked to do Dad: Louis was a good boy son. After Dad left I got to thinking that this Jesus guy might be the only one in heaven. Everybody tried to be good but everybody messed up sometimes, no matter how hard they tried. My Sunday School teacher says that God is out Heavenly Father. Well my dad isn't perfect. He never picks up after himself, and he cusses like a sailor. And sometimes, when people pay him for fixing their car, he puts the money in his pocket instead of writing it down in that book where you show how much you gotta pay the government. But even with all his messing, cussing and cheating the government, I know one thing. My Dad would never lock me and my brother out of our house forever and ever cause we did something bad. And he sure wouldn't lock us in the basement in the woodstove with some guy in a red suit to stick a pitchfork up our ass. So I say a prayer for God to be as good a dad as my dad is to me and my brother Once again, this is why I like novels. You just never know what you are going to find hidden away in some little paragraph! Barb From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:14:54 -0500 - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 08:14 Subject: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. at Streetsville United Church Please confirm if you will be in attendance. There is no charge. 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] Narrow way not loving?
John S. wrote: What so many do not understand or refuse to understand, is that the Gospel has nothing to do with the right church, the right creed, the right doctrine but everything to do with loving God, loving self and loving those around us ( the neighbor). I agree wholeheartedly with the point you are trying to make here, but not with the exclusiveness of the words you have chosen to express it (e.g., has nothing to do with ...). 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.
[TruthTalk] Theology from within the risen Christ
"For by the Son all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" -- Col 1.16-17. May I ask you all a question: what in all of creation is not positionally -- and by that I mean ontologically -- in Christ? I don't really know what the faith movement that Judymentioned means when they speak of positional truth, but Iknow that the Bible tells us that we are all, including all creation,in Christ. Much too much is made of separation; that isGreek dualism: Don't believe it!If there is any separation from God,it isnot existential. Wehave our existence in Christ. That is where we are ontologically positioned; that is where we have our being. To exist in exclusion to Christ would be to be gods ourselves, having the power of existence in our own nature. That, my friends, is animpossibility. No, the separation is in our minds; I believe it is a figment of our imagination, a fearful projection which tells us that we have been cut off and excluded from God and that we must find a way to get back to him (or her, or it); this is called "religion"; it comes fromour "fallen" mind. It is not true.The truth is, the separation, though ontologically false, has arelational dynamic: we feel separatedwhen we (1) deliberately exclude "God" from our lives, or (2) believe lies that tell us that we are excluded from him.In other words, it is our fallen mindsthat tells us we areseparated from God. Don't believe it! We must stop trying to get ourselves and othersback to God: we are allin Christ -- how much more "back to God" can we get? Rather we must work out our theology from withinthe risen Christ. If you are interested in going further with this, I have much more to say. Bill PS I am off to the Rocky Mountain Nationals, a 3000 member wrestling tournament in Denver. Andy's weight-class has over 150 participants. I'll be back Sunday evening. Go Andy!
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Thanks for the post, David. I'll try to get back to it after the weekend, as I am of to Denver. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving? Bill Taylor wrote: The point of Jesus' statement had to do with the unwillingness of the religious establishment to repent and accept his teaching as truth. They were steadfast in their error, yet convinced they were right and needed no correction. That problem is still with us today. I agree, Bill, but I'm not sure we have the same people in mind in regards to the religious establishment. I consider the religious establishment to be guys like N.T. Wright and T.F. Torrance, and perhaps their ardent disciples. We agree that the problem is still here with us, but we probably disagree about who is teachable and who is not. I consider myself to be very teachable, and so do most people who know me. However, the older I get, the more informed opinions I have, and the expression of opinions is often deemed to be unlike a child. In fact, many consider any form of teaching whatsoever to be reflective of an unteachable person. Although I do teach from time to time, my heart is still very much like a child in regards to the Lord and following him. Bill Taylor wrote: If that is cause and effect then I'm with you. Actually, I was talking about the relationship between those who do not appreciate the use of Scripture to correct and instruct one another (e.g., Lance), and the disbelief of those same people that a man of God may be perfect. I was talking about cause and effect in regards to the 2 Tim. 3:16-17 passage teaching that the Scriptures being used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (the cause) results in the effect of a man of God being perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Do you believe this pasage of Scripture, Bill, or would you argue that we should not take this passage literally, or that we need to think in non-linear terms about it, or that we can only understand it if we shake off the effects of the enlightenment project that are upon our thinking processes? Does my reductionistic approach to understanding this passage offend you? 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. -- 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] Narrow way not loving?
Martin Buber, in a conversation with TFTorrance some time ago, said 'I've not listened to anyone over five years of age for thirty years. (He is the author if 'I and Thou') - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2005 10:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving? Bill Taylor wrote: The point of Jesus' statement had to do with the unwillingness of the religious establishment to repent and accept his teaching as truth. They were steadfast in their error, yet convinced they were right and needed no correction. That problem is still with us today. I agree, Bill, but I'm not sure we have the same people in mind in regards to the religious establishment. I consider the religious establishment to be guys like N.T. Wright and T.F. Torrance, and perhaps their ardent disciples. We agree that the problem is still here with us, but we probably disagree about who is teachable and who is not. I consider myself to be very teachable, and so do most people who know me. However, the older I get, the more informed opinions I have, and the expression of opinions is often deemed to be unlike a child. In fact, many consider any form of teaching whatsoever to be reflective of an unteachable person. Although I do teach from time to time, my heart is still very much like a child in regards to the Lord and following him. Bill Taylor wrote: If that is cause and effect then I'm with you. Actually, I was talking about the relationship between those who do not appreciate the use of Scripture to correct and instruct one another (e.g., Lance), and the disbelief of those same people that a man of God may be perfect. I was talking about cause and effect in regards to the 2 Tim. 3:16-17 passage teaching that the Scriptures being used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (the cause) results in the effect of a man of God being perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Do you believe this pasage of Scripture, Bill, or would you argue that we should not take this passage literally, or that we need to think in non-linear terms about it, or that we can only understand it if we shake off the effects of the enlightenment project that are upon our thinking processes? Does my reductionistic approach to understanding this passage offend you? 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. -- 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] Fw: A little unexpected theology
Novels are not the best thing upon which to base our theology. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:15 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology - Original Message - From: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 09:38 Subject: A little unexpected theology Hey there. Thought you would like a little section I came across in a novel Carry Me Home, that I was reading. One more reason to entertain the idea of universalism!! I'll try and give it to you as best I remember. The novel is about a young man who had a high fever as a child and is at about a 10 year old leval mentally even thought he's in his early 20's. His brother has gone to the Phillipines in WW2 along with several of their childhood buddies. One of the young men is killed and the funeral is held in the small town. After the funeral, the young man is having trouble sleeping and his Dad comes in to tuck him in. He asks the dad Is Louis in heaven? Dad: Funerals always make people ask questions about things like that I knew that Dad hadn't answered my question, so I asked it again. Is Louis in heaven? Dad: Well, we know that if we love Jesus and live a good life then we will go to heaven Son: Is it a good life to drink lots of Schlitz, talk about titties and fish in the mill pond? Cause that's what Louis liked to do Dad: Louis was a good boy son. After Dad left I got to thinking that this Jesus guy might be the only one in heaven. Everybody tried to be good but everybody messed up sometimes, no matter how hard they tried. My Sunday School teacher says that God is out Heavenly Father. Well my dad isn't perfect. He never picks up after himself, and he cusses like a sailor. And sometimes, when people pay him for fixing their car, he puts the money in his pocket instead of writing it down in that book where you show how much you gotta pay the government. But even with all his messing, cussing and cheating the government, I know one thing. My Dad would never lock me and my brother out of our house forever and ever cause we did something bad. And he sure wouldn't lock us in the basement in the woodstove with some guy in a red suit to stick a pitchfork up our ass. So I say a prayer for God to be as good a dad as my dad is to me and my brother Once again, this is why I like novels. You just never know what you are going to find hidden away in some little paragraph! Barb From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:14:54 -0500 - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 08:14 Subject: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. at Streetsville United Church Please confirm if you will be in attendance. There is no charge. 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. -- 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] Narrow way not loving?
Five year olds are not the best things upon which to base one's theology. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:49 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving? Martin Buber, in a conversation with TFTorrance some time ago, said 'I've not listened to anyone over five years of age for thirty years. (He is the author if 'I and Thou') - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2005 10:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving? Bill Taylor wrote: The point of Jesus' statement had to do with the unwillingness of the religious establishment to repent and accept his teaching as truth. They were steadfast in their error, yet convinced they were right and needed no correction. That problem is still with us today. I agree, Bill, but I'm not sure we have the same people in mind in regards to the religious establishment. I consider the religious establishment to be guys like N.T. Wright and T.F. Torrance, and perhaps their ardent disciples. We agree that the problem is still here with us, but we probably disagree about who is teachable and who is not. I consider myself to be very teachable, and so do most people who know me. However, the older I get, the more informed opinions I have, and the expression of opinions is often deemed to be unlike a child. In fact, many consider any form of teaching whatsoever to be reflective of an unteachable person. Although I do teach from time to time, my heart is still very much like a child in regards to the Lord and following him. Bill Taylor wrote: If that is cause and effect then I'm with you. Actually, I was talking about the relationship between those who do not appreciate the use of Scripture to correct and instruct one another (e.g., Lance), and the disbelief of those same people that a man of God may be perfect. I was talking about cause and effect in regards to the 2 Tim. 3:16-17 passage teaching that the Scriptures being used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (the cause) results in the effect of a man of God being perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Do you believe this pasage of Scripture, Bill, or would you argue that we should not take this passage literally, or that we need to think in non-linear terms about it, or that we can only understand it if we shake off the effects of the enlightenment project that are upon our thinking processes? Does my reductionistic approach to understanding this passage offend you? 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. -- 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] Theology from within the risen Christ
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:46:04 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "For by the Son all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" -- Col 1.16-17. May I ask you all a question: what in all of creation is not positionally -- and by that I mean ontologically -- in Christ? Darkness and sin; there is no darkness in Him and "Let anyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity" I get the idea that you ppl who are heavily into the incarnation do not take these things into consideration at all so holiness is not an issue.. I don't really know what the faith movement that Judymentioned means when they speak of positional truth, but Iknow that the Bible tells us that we are all, including all creation,in Christ. Sure everything is held together by the Word of His Power butwhy doesthe creation still groan as it waits for the manifestation of the sons of God? Much too much is made of separation; that isGreek dualism: Don't believe it!If there is any separation from God,it isnot existential. I agree that much too much is made of Greek on this forum... Sin will cause separation from God no matter what the culture. Wehave our existence in Christ. That is where we are ontologically positioned; that is where we have our being. To exist in exclusion to Christ would be to be gods ourselves, having the power of existence in our own nature. That, my friends, is animpossibility. No, the separation is in our minds; I believe it is a figment of our imagination, a fearful projection which tells us that we have been cut off and excluded from God and that we must find a way to get back to him (or her, or it); this is called "religion"; it comes fromour "fallen" mind. Then to your way of thinking Satan isin Christ also along with his demons since they too arecreated beings and God is so loving??? It is not true.The truth is, the separation, though ontologically false, has arelational dynamic: we feel separatedwhen we (1) deliberately exclude "God" from our lives, or (2) believe lies that tell us that we are excluded from him.In other words, it is our fallen mindsthat tells us we areseparated from God. If you are not separating yourself from sin and putting on Christ daily - then "believe it!" You can't take all of those spots and wrinkles you are clinging to on into the Kingdom of God no darkness is tolerated there. Don't believe it! We must stop trying to get ourselves and othersback to God: we are allin Christ -- how much more "back to God" can we get? Rather we must work out our theology from withinthe risen Christ. What irony- claiming to be within the risen Christ and working things out from there while ATST minding earthly things and behavingso much like the devil. If you are interested in going further with this, I have much more to say. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Even Jesus Himself had to wait until he was 30yrs old before being anointed and released to ministry. How is it that God's ways appear to mean absolutely nothing to some in this generation? jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:59:26 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Five year olds are not the best things upon which to base one'stheology. Izzy[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lance MuirMartin Buber, in a conversation with TFTorrance some time ago, said 'I'venot listened to anyone over five years of age for thirty years". (Heis theauthor if 'I and Thou') From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bill Taylor wrote:The point of Jesus' statement had to do with theunwillingness of the religious establishment to repentand accept his teaching as truth. They were steadfastin their error, yet convinced they were right and neededno correction. That problem is still with us today. DM: I agree, Bill, but I'm not sure we have the same people in mind inregardsto the "religious establishment." I consider the religiousestablishmenttobe guys like N.T. Wright and T.F. Torrance, and perhaps theirardentdisciples. We agree that the problem is still here with us, butweprobablydisagree about who is teachable and who is not. I consider myself to be very teachable, and so do most people who know me. However, theolder Iget, the more informed opinions I have, and the _expression_ ofopinions isoften deemed to be unlike a child. In fact, many consider anyform ofteaching whatsoever to be reflective of an unteachable person.Although Ido teach from time to time, my heart is still very much like achild inregards to the Lord and following him. Bill Taylor wrote:If that is "cause and effect" then I'm with you.DM: Actually, I was talking about the relationship between those whodo not appreciate the use of Scripture to correct and instruct oneanother (e.g.,Lance), and the disbelief of those same people that a man of Godmay beperfect. I was talking about "cause and effect" in regards to the2 Tim.3:16-17 passage teaching that the Scriptures being used fordoctrine,reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (the cause)resultsinthe effect of a man of God being perfect, throughly furnished untoallgoodworks.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology
What kind of theology is this Lance? All it does is "make God into our image" We are the fallen ones and lying, cheating, cussing, etc. is the nature of the devil. Jesus died so that we could be free from this - I have not had the desire to lie, cheat, cuss, or steal since I came to Him with my whole heart. The theology below is not from the Spirit of God. jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:15:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: "Barb Annunziello" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 09:38 Subject: A little unexpected theology Hey there. Thought you would like a little section I came across in a novel "Carry Me Home", that I was reading. One more reason to entertain the idea of universalism!! I'll try and give it to you as best I remember. The novel is about a young man who had a high fever as a child and is at about a 10 year old leval mentally even thought he's in his early 20's. His brother has gone to the Phillipines in WW2 along with several of their childhood buddies. One of the young men is killed and the funeral is held in the small town. After the funeral, the young man is having trouble sleeping and his Dad comes in to tuck him in. He asks the dad "Is Louis in heaven?" Dad: Funerals always make people ask questions about things like that I knew that Dad hadn't answered my question, so I asked it again. "Is Louis in heaven?" Dad: Well, we know that if we love Jesus and live a good life then we will go to heaven Son: Is it a good life to drink lots of Schlitz, talk about titties and fish in the mill pond? Cause that's what Louis liked to do Dad: Louis was a good boy son. After Dad left I got to thinking that this Jesus guy might be the only one in heaven. Everybody tried to be good but everybody messed up sometimes, no matter how hard they tried. My Sunday School teacher says that God is out Heavenly Father. Well my dad isn't perfect. He never picks up after himself, and he cusses like a sailor. And sometimes, when people pay him for fixing their car, he puts the money in his pocket instead of writing it down in that book where you show how much you gotta pay the government. But even with all his messing, cussing and cheating the government, I know one thing. My Dad would never lock me and my brother out of our house forever and ever cause we did something bad. And he sure wouldn't lock us in the basement in the woodstove with some guy in a red suit to stick a pitchfork up our ass. So I say a prayer for God to be as good a dad as my dad is to me and my brother Once again, this is why I like novels. You just never know what you are going to find hidden away in some little paragraph! Barb From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Barb Annunziello" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:14:54 -0500 - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 08:14 Subject: Victor Shepherd Lecture with QA Sat Apr 2 9-11 a.m. at Streetsville United Church Please confirm if you will be in attendance. There is no charge.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] Fw: A little unexpected theology
Lance wrote: But even with all his messing, cussing and cheating the government, I know one thing. My Dad would never lock me and my brother out of our house forever and ever cause we did something bad. This exactly makes my point that it is the wicked who do not comprehend and minister justice. Only a righteous God can cast sinners into hell fire and damnation. The rest of us are softies, and the more wicked a person is, the more soft he is on administering justice. The wicked kill and maime for selfish interests, but only a righteous God administers eternal judgment for the good of all in the community. Jesus said, if you then, BEING EVIL, know how to give good gifts unto your children... 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] Eternal Judgment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/18/2005 7:17:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomes rebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD The good news is only good for those who apply the blood. It is bad news for those who sneer at it. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
In a message dated 3/18/2005 10:52:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomes rebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD The good news is only good for those who apply the blood. It is bad news for those who sneer at it.Terry True and it is bad news for those who listen to the fantasy that we are judged by the Torah (and I speak of spiritual or eternal destiny). Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Theology from within the risen Christ
Bill Taylor wrote: "For by the Son all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" -- Col 1.16-17. May I ask you all a question: what in all of creation is not positionally -- and by that I mean ontologically -- in Christ? I don't really know what the faith movement that Judymentioned means when they speak of positional truth, but Iknow that the Bible tells us that we are all, including all creation,in Christ. Much too much is made of separation; that isGreek dualism: Don't believe it!If there is any separation from God,it isnot existential. Wehave our existence in Christ. That is where we are ontologically positioned; that is where we have our being. To exist in exclusion to Christ would be to be gods ourselves, having the power of existence in our own nature. That, my friends, is animpossibility. No, the separation is in our minds; I believe it is a figment of our imagination, a fearful projection which tells us that we have been cut off and excluded from God and that we must find a way to get back to him (or her, or it); this is called "religion"; it comes fromour "fallen" mind. It is not true.The truth is, the separation, though ontologically false, has arelational dynamic: we feel separatedwhen we (1) deliberately exclude "God" from our lives, or (2) believe lies that tell us that we are excluded from him.In other words, it is our fallen mindsthat tells us we areseparated from God. Don't believe it! We must stop trying to get ourselves and othersback to God: we are allin Christ -- how much more "back to God" can we get? Rather we must work out our theology from withinthe risen Christ. If you are interested in going further with this, I have much more to say. Bill === No more for me, thanks, I've had more than enough. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
In a message dated 3/18/2005 8:49:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the post, David. I'll try to get back to it after the weekend, as I am of to Denver. Again, good luck this weekend, Andy. Bill's youngest stud (there are two others) is off to a wrestling tourney involving wrestlers from 26 states -- more than 3000 will be there this weekend. If Andy looses, I am confident that his place at his father's side will remain secure. It is wonderful to have a father who offers correction and instruction, "discipline" if you will, apart from torture and exclusion. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
In a message dated 3/18/2005 8:16:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More enlightenment from JD: (I think Ill go take a bath now.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:31 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment Actually, Romans 14:4 is a doctrinal statement that presses this individual relationship to the Master and disembowels the Giant Turd* we call Legalista. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD I love your view of a discussion group. You cheer those with whom you agree and casually dismiss those who are in disagreement along with the biblical arguments that support their position. Romans 14:4 says what it says ... as does I Co 8:1-3 and Jere 31:31-34. While passing through Missouri, Bill and I thought of stopping by to visit but decided that you might be in the shower. JD Student of Scripture and all around nice guy
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
In a message dated 3/18/2005 8:32:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John S. wrote: What so many do not understand or refuse to understand, is that the Gospel has nothing to do with the right church, the right creed, the right doctrine but everything to do with loving God, loving self and loving those around us ( the neighbor). I agree wholeheartedly with the point you are trying to make here, but not with the exclusiveness of the words you have chosen to express it (e.g., "has nothing to do with ..."). Fine but keep in mind that I am speaking of the "Gospel." My relationship with the Lord is based in God, self and others. When I speak of the "right church," I speak of the buildings and wall of separation that provides edifice on the horizens around us and blocks out the true light of God. When I speak of "right creed," I speak of the exlusionary "arrival at truth" that finds us at odds with others (sectarism) and in denial of such thoughts as I Co 8:1-3. When I speak of "right doctrine," I speak of a personal confidence in one's ability to think and interpret -- an "intellectual process" that undeniably provides me with exactly what God had in mind when He speaks or writes something. JD Glad you agree.
Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology
He may be a 'uni' but, without the 'versalist' - Original Message - From: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2005 15:25 Subject: RE: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology Should I ask who David Miller is?? And what's his slant? I don't think he sounds like a universalist! Barb From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Barb Annunziello [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:49:02 -0500 - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2005 13:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: A little unexpected theology Lance wrote: But even with all his messing, cussing and cheating the government, I know one thing. My Dad would never lock me and my brother out of our house forever and ever cause we did something bad. This exactly makes my point that it is the wicked who do not comprehend and minister justice. Only a righteous God can cast sinners into hell fire and damnation. The rest of us are softies, and the more wicked a person is, the more soft he is on administering justice. The wicked kill and maime for selfish interests, but only a righteous God administers eternal judgment for the good of all in the community. Jesus said, if you then, BEING EVIL, know how to give good gifts unto your children... 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. -- 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] Eternal Judgment
I love your view of a discussion group. You cheer those with whom you agree and casually dismiss those who are in disagreement along with the biblical arguments that support their position. Romans 14:4 says what it says ... as does I Co 8:1-3 and Jere 31:31-34. While passing through Missouri, Bill and I thought of stopping by to visit but decided that you might be in the shower. JD Student of Scripture and all around nice guy Ive been begging you guys for some of that biblical arguments that support your positions, without much success. If you missed itthats my point. It saddens me that you both decided to dismiss the idea visiting me when you passed through Missourinot all-around nice of you. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
"Rarely does it ever say God is angry with the person. " Your god is not the God of the BIBLE. God does not just hate sin he Hates the "workers" (read people) of iniquity PS 5:5 thou hatest all workers of iniquity PS 7:11 God is angry with the wicked every dayThe Bible does not say God is angry with the sinner every day God does not cast just sin but People into HELL God rained down Fire Brimstone on People their sin It was people not just sin that missed the Ark. Also NOTICE He is Angry with them EVERY DAY! They are making deposits every day. RM 2 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God "Love the sinner hate the sin" is a nice PHILOSOPHY, but itis not in the BIBLE Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry:The Bible says that God is angry with the sinner every day, and that is true.Caroline:The bible says God is angry with sin and sin within people mostly. Or that He is angry with national rebellion. Rarely does it ever say God is angry with the person. The people Jesus was most angry with were those who ought to know better but weren't practicing mercy and justice. He spoke about being more righteous than the Pharisees and being holy but he never called any of the sin-filled women he met whore. They were sisters and daughters to him. He ate with them. He could separate their acts from their personhood.Terry:The Bible says that He hated Esau, and that is true.Caroline:And how was His hate expressed? It's neat to consider as Esau and Jacob were twins. Esau married at least 3 women, had a large family and lived in Seir which was their Promised Land. When Jacob returned, Esau could gather an army to meet him which shows he had community standing. He initially refused Jacob's gifts because he had plenty. The two brothers could not live in the same area because they had too much men and animals. Jacob had to leave home, work as a slave, wrestle with God. His children ends up as slaves in Egypt, wander the desert, fight for every inch of the Promised land, live there in anarchy and terror, suffer under bad kings, get exiled, return to devastated land and temple, end up under Roman rule.On Israel's way to their Promised Land, they passed by Seir and God told Moses that this was land given to Esau by Him, that these people were their brothers, that they can not start a war here and they had to pay for everything they used.When we hate someone we wish them all sorts of evil. God can't plan or do evil because there is no darkness in Him. His hate is different from ours.The Edomites (like lots of other nations) later came under judgment. But Esau himself had a pretty decent life. The phrase "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" meant God chose Jacob's line to be the one He will actively shape into the nation that He will step into the world through. They were forged as steel and iron are forged. That is love. Esau was left alone like a wild bush. That is hate.And it was decided before they were born and could do anything to earn either love or hate. That is destiny.Terry:Do you think that possibly there is a time when God feels that His love has been rejected long enough, and His love turns to anger and then finally to hate?Caroline:Sure, in Jeremiah 3, He had enough and divorced Israel. Then, a few short verses later, He said, "Return, faithless Israel," declares the LORD, "I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful," decalres the LORD, "I will not be angry forever."We can not out love God or beat Him in faithfulness. He is more constant in His love than either Hosea or Job.So, ultimately, no. --"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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25
Redefinition 101: 25 reasons why Eternal is not eternal, Damnation is not damnation and Hell is a real nice place.Caroline Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Iwas raiseda very proper Evangelical. 4 Spiritual Laws. Sola scriptura and sola fide. But life is a journey and change is the only constant. Not long ago, I emailed a former pastor and said I'm fast becoming a universalist! Please email back reasons why I shouldn't be! He had a good laugh. The number one passage people bring up is Matthew 25 about eternal punishment and eternal life. Talbott says "eternal" here means long time but not...eternal (just as some would say a day is not a day and all does not mean all but those are debates for another time!!). He makes agood argument on the Greek term but, as someone else who has read the book said, it was not entirely compelling. I think the key to Matthew 25 is the epistle of 1 John. The whole epistle helps but thekey verse is 1 John 1:2 "The life appeared: we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." Eternal life is Christ Jesus. It is the incarnation. It is about us in Him and He in us. It is right now and more fully later. Even now, we are seated in the heavenly realms at the right hand side of our Father in Jesus Christ our brother, saviour and Lord. Right now we have eternal life because we have Him. Getting eternal life is getting Jesus. Getting eternal punishment is getting the other guy. That parable does not contradict other teachings in the bible about salvation and God's love. While some will use this parable as saying hell is eternal just as heaven is eternal because it fits their theology, this parable no longer have to be the sticking point for universalism. The gates of hell can be stormed and the strong man's home can be plundered becasue he can be tied up."O LORD, you brought me up from sheol" Psalm 30:3 "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in sheol, you are there." Psalm 139:8 Universalismhave biblical support and can be formulated in an internally coherent theology. There areseveral such systems now: exclusivism, inclusivism, annihilation, universalism.What resonates with your spirit? Jesus asked, "Who do you say that I am?"The system that you choose depends on how you answer Jesus' question. I thought I'd throw that in as most likely I can't spend too much time on TT and will be here less. Love and God bless, Caroline Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
RE: [TruthTalk] Terri Shiavo
I used to think they should just pull the plug on Terri because I believe that once a person is unable to eat on their own thats the bodys way of saying its time to goespecially with the elderly. Ive seen the elderly kept living for years at the end of a feeding tube, curled up in a bed, totally gone mentally. She can be given pain killers that will keep her from suffering as her body starves. Keeping a feeding tube in a person is certainly an artificial means of interfering in nature taking its course. Terris case, however, is so very complicated and I doubt I have all of the facts on it. But I finally decided it is wrong to let her body die, for just one reasonto spare her parents. Terri probably feels no emotions one way or the other about dying. In fact, I think it would be kind to let her go on to whatever is her eternal reward. But her husband has it in his power to spare her parents the double grief of losing their daughter twiceonce when she was brain injured, and now this final parting. He could have let her live at least until her parents passed on. My heart aches for them. David Shiavo is thinking of himself, not of Terris parents. And it seems that he stopped thinking about Terri long ago. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:36 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terri Shiavo There may be more to this story than meets the eye. I didn't see the Nightline interview but I did hear an interview with Terri Shiavo's brother on the radio yesterday in which he spoke of new evidence that is coming to light after 15yrs years. Apparently they found a full body scan taken three weeks after she went into the coma which shows multiple broken bones and mended fractures so abuse on the part of the husband issuspected along with the fact that he did not take long to move on with his life; within a year he was living with another woman by whom he now has two children. Michael is wanting to get Terri's death over with so that he can have her body cremated, or at least this is how it appears.Why should it matter to him whether or not her parents and brother keep her alive if they are willing to take responsibility?He can divorce her and go on with his life can't he? jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:02:46 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael very likely took a vow to love his wife until they were separated by death. I am not too surprised that he did not take themoney. I am surprised that he wants to kill someone that he tookfor better or worse. Terry David Miller wrote: Did any of you get a chance to see Nightline's interview withMichael Shiavo? I'm wondering if any of you support Michael Shiavo'sdesire not toallow Terri's parents and brother to keep feeding her. Are any ofyousurprised that he has turned down $10 million and $1 million offersto letthe parents have custody of her? Peace be with you. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
Only God can break thru to those hard hearts. Those with this malady do not even know their plight. Scott Peterson just went to death row. The execution has not been carried out as of yet, but he is a "condemned" man. So also is he that Believeth not he is CONDEMNED ALREADY, just waiting for the executioner. Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen! I know a hard heart is not good - Jesus said that this is why men put away their wives and it is why Moses gave a bill of divorcement. However, I see an 'evil heart of unbelief' spoken of more along with stiff necked and stubborn rebellion.Since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" - It is true that a heart that is hardened to God's Word is a heart that is hardened to the God of the Word also. jt On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:36:24 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A heart that is hardened to Gods Word is a heart that is hardened to God. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonLance Muir wrote: Yes Terry, I would. In actuality, with some, this does not happen. I do not know why. By the by, education, as you and some others cite as problematic from time to time, is not the issue. The issue is the heart. Good point. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
I just don't see why any Christian would think the Lord would physically and punitively literally toss them into a burning lake to torture them forever. Why is such brutality needed by God? I don't see why it makes sense to anyone who believes God is a loving parent.rather it makes God seem like the ogre Perry mentioned. Maybe when you move in next door to some of the most debased characters who ever walked this earth, you will know why. The same reason homeowners do not want child molestors, murderers, cannibals to move into the neighborhood. There is also a just punishment to consider. You may take lying lightly, but all sin is breaking of God's law. the punishment for lying is the same as Murder, The DEATH SENTENCE. The only way out is accepting God's pardon thru the sacrifice and payment of the death sentence by Jesus Christ. Without that pardon God is too Holy to even look on your sin and will cast you out of His sight forever into the lake of fire so you can be neighbors with a Motley Crew. In God's presence will only be the Pure Redeemed, washed by the Blood of the Lamb! No admittence to those without a Wedding Garment! MT 22 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It is one thing to spank your kid and send him to his room for the night. It is another to toss him into a boiling cauldron knowing that he will be screaming in torment due to physical pain forever. If any Christian wanted to do that to his child.I would question their sanity as a parent AND a Christian. You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomesrebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter.DAVEH: My comment about any Christian wanting to do that to his child was not referring to spanking, but rather to using excessive punishment for a child's transgression. When you punish (not that you would ever need to, DavidM!) any of your children, does your punishment reflect the magnitude of the crime (so to speak)? IOWIf one of your kids disobeys one of your requests to read do something simple, would you then take a baseball bat to them and wail on them to within an inch of their life and continue doing such every day for a year? Of course not! Yet many Protestants believe God will do much worse than that. DaveH wrote: Would you be willing to forever physically (and punitively) torture him for such an action? No, but I recognize that the reason I am unwilling is because of my own unrighteousness.DAVEH: ??? Are you sure you want to go there, DavidM? In other words, if you were (more) righteous, you would be more brutal? This is sounding more like Muslim fanaticism than Christianity. DaveH wrote: Do you think you inflictingphysical torturous injury on him every second of his eternalexistence would be just punishment for simply saying noto Jesus? Yes.DAVEH: Thank you for your brutal honesty, DavidM. At least there is no question where you stand on this matter. IMHO, the punishment does not fit the crime. I cannot fathom a loving parent who would be so cruel. DaveH wrote: If Protestants want to belief eternal physical torture is the method God uses to dispense his love and mercy in the name of justice.forgive me for being unsympathetic to such beliefs. You confuse the issue again. God's execution of his wrath and judgment is not a dispensing of love and mercy. His love and mercy is manifested in what he did in sending his Son Jesus Christ, and again his love and mercy is manifestedin how he bestows forgiveness upon those who believe upon him. At the same time, his judgment remains true and right against those who have rejected his Son Jesus.DAVEH: It is my opinion that those who reject the Lord will in turn be rejected by him. Effectively, that rejection will distance them from the Lord's presence and love. I just don't see why any Christian would think the Lord would physically and punitively literally toss them into a burning lake to torture them forever. Why is such brutality needed by God? I don't see why it makes sense to anyone who believes God is a loving parent.rather it makes God seem like the ogre Perry mentioned. Peace be with you.David Miller.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six
Re: [TruthTalk] Narrow way not loving?
In a message dated 3/18/2005 1:43:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Rarely does it ever say God is angry with the person. " Your god is not the God of the BIBLE. God does not just hate sin he Hates the "workers" (read people) of iniquity PS 5:5 thou hatest all workers of iniquity PS 7:11 God is angry with the wicked every day The Bible does not say God is angry with the sinner every day God does not cast just sin but People into HELL God rained down Fire Brimstone on People their sin It was people not just sin that missed the Ark. Also NOTICE He is Angry with them EVERY DAY! They are making deposits every day. RM 2 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God "Love the sinner hate the sin" is a nice PHILOSOPHY, but it is not in the BIBLE Spoken well by one who does not have the foggiest as to what balances the scales of "justice." G.A.G. the Gospel of the Angry God (did I say "gospel" ?) functions in exactly the same way as the Old Law with it's sacrifices for sin. In the modern economy, the difference between the two is that the "altar" is now the knee bent in occasional confession and repentance. Until that takes place, there is no salvation or salvation is lost. I have yet seen the circumstance in which the legalist saint can explain why we even needed the blood sacrifice from the Lamb of God. They deny it's continual flow. They insist that the cross only forgave past sins. They exclude all who are "sinners" ignoring the filth that is in their lives (join the club -- our righteousness is as filthy rags ) . They preach that the offer of grace, an unmerited occasion, is completely ineffectual in the face of a continuing sin issue -- rejecting the clear teaching of scripture in Romans 7 and Eph 3 (parallel passages -- surprise, surprise) and the several examples of those who were called to do His bidding but without "perfection'" as a result of personal effort (alla Samson, the doubting Gideon, the manipulative Abraham, the heavy drinking Noah, the murderer Paul and the morally impoverished King David). They insist that the "inwardness of the law" is memorization and that the bible is (in some circles) the very "spirit of God." A great debate it is. God has included all mankind in the continuing event we call The Incarnation. In Christ we find the Trinity (If you have seen me you have seen the Father); in Christ is all of creation ( all things are in Him ..); in Christ is all of humanity (He became sin ) One of a hundred ideas revised during the past two weeks by yours truly, is the notion of dualism -- especially as it effects the doctrine of man. We cannot separate man from what he is !!! He is both "saint and sinner." One increases and one decreases -- but the tension between the two remains during our earthly stay. But more than this, man is an adopted child of God. That cannot be changed and the story of the [prodigal] son is a tale of just this wonderful truth.. whether he stays at home and acts out his selfish ways or travels to a far country to do the same, the Father (gee, I wonder who that is?) is gracious and forgiving without reason -- except, of course, his own love for the Family. The renewed Smithmeister, determined to be a really nice guy (for a while)
[TruthTalk] Wondering
Early this afternoon it was wonderfully warm and sunny outside and I wanted to walk my Sheltie, Lacey, to Forest Park about a mile from here as I do most nice days, for her Bark in the Park. However I wavered and decided that, since they were forecasting rain this afternoon, I should hurry and do my grocery shopping first, and then come home and try to squeeze in the walk before the clouds rolled in. So I did. On the way home from the grocery store I heard on the radio that a car had gone wildly out of control and flew into the Union/Lindell entrance of Forest Park at a very high rate of speed. It just missed the large statue at the entrance, flew over a lagoon and smashed headfirst into a large tree, killing one occupant and injuring two others. After getting home I took Lacey there and looked at the crash site. Emergency vehicles still filled the streets, police were taking photos, and yellow tape marked off the entrance where Lacey and I always enter and begin our walk, right along the same side of the statue where the car charged past it. And there, where Lacey likes to run and bark, was the car---so severely smashed that the entire front of it was nearly missing. Earlier this morning as I prayed in the sunroom I told the Lord Ive been enduring so much adversity lately that I wondered if He is just chastising me for my own good, or if I am just so displeasing to Him that I have no hope of ever getting back underneath His protective wings of blessings. I asked Him, if that were true, if He would just forgive me and take me to be with Him today. Then I left it in His handsand went to the grocery store. As I stared at the path that I could so easily have taken at the moment that car hurtled into Forest Park today I decided that God is still protecting me in more ways than I can comprehend. And I suspect that is true of all of us. Izzy Prov 3: 5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
RE: [TruthTalk] Terri Shiavo
Take a look at the picture on this page does Terri look like a vegatable? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html Have you seen the video of her eyes following a balloon moved over her head There are something like 12 doctors willing to testify that she is not in a vegatative state. AND THEN THERE IS HER LOVING HUSBAND http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43378 The Schindlers have long sought the removal of Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian. Among the family's complaints are that Michael Schiavo: Has not allowed therapy or rehabilitation since 1992, despite medical records indicating Terri is responsive. Has prevented swallowing tests or swallowing therapy since 1993, despite medical testimony Terri can be taught to eat. Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth since 1995, resulting in removal of five teeth in April 2004. Placed Terri in hospice in 2000, despite the fact she is not terminally ill. Refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. She has not been outside since 2000. Ordered doctors not to treat Terri when she had a life threatening infection in 1993 and 1995. "Michael claims he loves Terri, and he has said it on numerous occasions, but he treats her in a way I don't think most of us would treat our own pets," Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother, told WND. ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used to think they should just pull the plug on Terri because I believe that once a person is unable to eat on their own thats the bodys way of saying its time to goespecially with the elderly. Ive seen the elderly kept living for years at the end of a feeding tube, curled up in a bed, totally gone mentally. She can be given pain killers that will keep her from suffering as her body starves. Keeping a feeding tube in a person is certainly an artificial means of interfering in nature taking its course. Terris case, however, is so very complicated and I doubt I have all of the facts on it. But I finally decided it is wrong to let her body die, for just one reasonto spare her parents. Terri probably feels no emotions one way or the other about dying. In fact, I think it would be kind to let her go on to whatever is her eternal reward. But her husband has it in his power to spare her parents the double grief of losing their daughter twiceonce when she was brain injured, and now this final parting. He could have let her live at least until her parents passed on. My heart aches for them. David Shiavo is thinking of himself, not of Terris parents. And it seems that he stopped thinking about Terri long ago. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:36 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Terri Shiavo There may be more to this story than meets the eye. I didn't see the Nightline interview but I did hear an interview with Terri Shiavo's brother on the radio yesterday in which he spoke of new evidence that is coming to light after 15yrs years. Apparently they found a full body scan taken three weeks after she went into the coma which shows multiple broken bones and mended fractures so abuse on the part of the husband issuspected along with the fact that he did not take long to move on with his life; within a year he was living with another woman by whom he now has two children. Michael is wanting to get Terri's death over with so that he can have her body cremated, or at least this is how it appears.Why should it matter to him whether or not her parents and brother keep her alive if they are willing to take responsibility?He can divorce her and go on with his life can't he? jt On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:02:46 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael very likely took a vow to love his wife until they were separated by death. I am not too surprised that he did not take themoney. I am surprised that he wants to kill someone that he tookfor better or worse. Terry David Miller wrote:Did any of you get a chance to see Nightline's interview withMichael Shiavo? I'm wondering if any of you support Michael Shiavo'sdesire not toallow Terri's parents and brother to keep feeding her. Are any ofyousurprised that he has turned down $10 million and $1 million offersto letthe parents have custody of her? Peace be with you. David Miller. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Re: [TruthTalk] Universalism Matthew 25
In a message dated 3/18/2005 1:48:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Redefinition 101: 25 reasons why Eternal is not eternal, Damnation is not damnation and Hell is a real nice place. Have no fear, sweet Caroline. The men on your right, that would Deegan's left, can handle his rebuke should you get tired of same. We remain resolute, well dentured and strong in the truth that God, our Father, the Father of even Kevin Deegan, is accepting of both his rather large person and his harangue (isn't that a fruit of some sort?). Kevin is actually a good guy and not afraid to stand up for his beliefs. Much to be admired. And God sees more than I in this regard. JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
-- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your mind has been polluted by the heretical LDS works. If you relied on his Word you would clearly see that your impressions of God are all wrong. BLAINE: I keep noticing that you do a lot of labeling, usually in reference to LDS stuff, Perry. Yet I seldom if ever read any solid reasoning or evidence to support your assertions. You just seem to rely on what you have read, usually some crackpot stuff that is, like your own writing, designed to ridicule, label, etc., and which seems to be rooted in a set of commonly agreed upon assumptions that themselves have never been too well defined--just asserted to be true. For instance: 1. You assume/assert the BoM to be fiction, but have never proven your case. Neither has anyone else, for that matter. 2. You assert/assume that the LDS Church is a cult, but again this has not been well enough defined to be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. 3. You assert/assume Joseph Smith was a false prophet, yet ignore his many revelations, prophecies, etc. that obviously are either fulfilled or in process of being fulfilled. 4. You assert/assume the Mormon concept of Jesus Christ to represent a different Jesus, yet seem to shy away from actually delineating why this is being assumed. I suppose I could go on, but for the sake of limiting discussion, will stop, waiting for your reply. I probably will not go to sites with anti-Mormon literature, which you often refer me to. I feel if the concepts are all that clear, you should be able to just jot them down succinctly in Perry-digested form. :) From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] So Perry.getting back to Goddo you really think a Perfect Parent would want to eternally torture their wayward children? To me./that /is illogical. No. As I said before, God would like for NONE of us to perish...you intentionally cast God in a bad light, even though you have been told otherwise many times before, you just do not want to accept it. You have to make God out to be an ogre through the eyes of your protestants so your mormon god seems bigger. It seems illogical to you because you use extra-biblical and non-biblical references to try to define God instead of relying solely on his Word. Your mind has been polluted by the heretical LDS works. If you relied on his Word you would clearly see that your impressions of God are all wrong. Perry -- 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] Loving and Merciful God of Justice
-- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, if you were to stop reading that heretical Momron literature and forming your own personal opinions of how you would like for God to be, and to begin to study the Bible in light of itself, not extrabiblical LDS references, you would come to a clear understanding of what God has revealed to us about his nature. BLAINE: There it is again, Perry--just some assertions that seem to have no basis in reason or fact. What is heretical Momron literature? Why is it heretical? I would like real reasons, not just some pat cliches you are repeating from what you have read on anit-Mormon sites. From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: [TruthTalk] Loving and Merciful God of Justice Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:37:36 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave wrote: I think one of the biggest /problems /(if that is the proper word to use) I have with Protestantism is their view of hell and damnation. I've said it before, but for some of you who are a bit new to TT, I'll give you a brief explanation. It seems to me that Protestants are far too eager to toss those who don't agree with their perspective of religion on the ash heap of hell, so o speak. Or rather, they seem to pleasure in the thought that God will forever punitively torture those who fail to walk that narrow path and enter the strait gate. I just don't feel comfortable believing in a God who relishes torture, Lance. I prefer to believe God is loving, merciful and would that all his creation benefit from their existence. Dave, if I may comment on your perspective of protestants... I do not find your perception at all be consitent with the Christians (protestants, if you prefer, although protestants does not encompass the whole of Christendom) DAVEH: I realize that, Perry. From my perspective, it is Protestantism that has drawn me to TT. If I wanted to talk to any Christian, I could simply chat with the LDS folks I meet at church. I have known throughout my life. I know that God wants none to perish, and would like for all to come to Him. However, he is just at the same time, and those who refuse God will have an eternal life apart from Him. DAVEH: I fully agree with what you've said so far, Perry. What concerns me is how Protestants view what happens to those who those who do not accept Jesus. It is their own choice. Paul says that God is evident in all of creation, so no man is without excuse. DAVEH: That's pretty lame in my opinion, Perry. So.are you saying that a person who lived without ever hearing of Jesus (say 1500 years ago in China) should be a believer of Jesus because of the evidence of God in what has been created? Simply appreciating the wonders of the world God created makes one a Christian, so to speak? Is that what you are suggesting, Perry? Ordo you think that the tongue needs to confess Jesus to be a believer in Jesus? I have never met a protestant that truly finds pleasure in the thought that unbeleivers will spend eternity apart from God, whatever that may be like. Nor have I ever met ANY Christian who believes that God relishes torture. DAVEH: You are a late comer to TT. However, I have heard that from unbeleivers who are looking for reasons to reject God. The bottom line is that God IS loving and merciful, and would like for all to come to Him, but he also is just. None of us are worthy, Dave as Paul said...none is without sin. DAVEH: Agreed. But for those who do not accept Jesus, do you not belief that men will be *forever *physically tortured for a sin they committed in mortalitya fixed time frame? How does such a momentary transgression bring such a long term physical punishment? Furthermore, it is not the transgression that demands the physical torture that lasts forever, but it is the failure to accept Jesus that separates those who receive that punitively painful punishment from those who get all the treasures of heaven. The whole Protestant concept of hell pivots on simply accepting Jesus or not. And that concept of hell is one of either pleasure, or torture. Does a simple mental attitude (that may not be the way to best express it) justify forever being in pleasure vs forever being physically tortured? To me it seems like a rather unloving and unmerciful way to dispense justice. And, no man is without excuse, because god is evident in creation. At the final call, either we wil have beleived, or we will not have beleived. And, only a merciful and just God can make that call...only He is worthy to open the book of life. I am truly sorry that you have that perspective of Christians. DAVEH: I don't have that perspective of all Christians at all, Perry. (Or, the subset called protestants if you prefer). DAVEH: I certainly have seen more of that unpalatable
Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards
-- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David wrote: Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so there must be more of a connection established to the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards. ***BLAINE: Dave, you wrote all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East after Noah's flood. This seems to be saying that just because a majotrity of people believe something it is true. In other words, are you asking me to go with a belief simply because it is popular? BLAINE: Describing the connection I am making between art depicting men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites, Jaredites, and Mulekites as only imaginary is, I would say, very cynical. Skeptical would be a more accurate word than cynical to describe my perspective. I do not consider the book of Mormon to be a historical book. I consider it a novel, an imaginery account that draws upon several sources. ***BLAINE: If it is just a novel, it is a lousy one. Have you ever heard of rave reviews from pro writers of fiction saying how exciting it is to read? Nope, me neither. It is the truth, however, and like the Bible, it often leans a little toward being dry reading. My word imaginery was not reflective of the connection you were making, but of the Nephites themselves. I hesitated to insert the word, but I wanted to communicate to you that the lack of a historical reality that exists in my mind concerning the Nephites. Blaine wrote: You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO proof tells me he ever even lived. Au contraire. The proof of the Bible is that we have historical men who have testified to what is recorded there. The Bible is filled with a genealogical basis going back to the very first man Adam. To argue that the Bible is myth would be to argue that the Jews of today do not exist. In the Jewish people, we find a culture and life as described in the writings of the Bible. This is not true for the book of Mormon. The people it speaks about are imaginary. It claims they once existed but then got wiped out. The Bible does not proceed by this method. The Bible speaks about its people in real terms and continues to give us promise concerning them. I can look all over the world, find Jews scattered just as the Bible says, also see them being called back to their land, just as the Bible says. I can read about the customs and rituals handed down to them in the Bible, and I can find these people still doing them. Even in Africa, there are tribes who continue such practices. ***BLAINE: I was trying to restrict my comments to the person of Jesus, whom you cannot prove ever existed. The Bible in general is a different matter. You cannot assume because the Bible has historical credibility that you can prove the existence of Jesus Christ as a Son of God, or anything else. As He said to Peter, after Peter declared Him to be the Son of the Living God, Flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven. In other words, He (Jesus) was admitting you cannot know who he truly was (IS) unless it comes from above, via the Holy Spirit, by way of revelation. Blaine wrote: You can't even tell me what the man looked like. Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what? All you have to go on is your imagination. Yet you accept him unquestioningly. I would not say that I accept him unquestioningly. I have a healthy skepticism toward what I read in the Bible too. As for his physical characteristics, I don't care much about that. I do care about the characteristics of his personality and person. BLAINE: But by way of reason, we should be able assume that if He were really so well thought of by his disciples, someone would have taken a moment to at least jot down a little about his physical appearance. It is only natural for humans to want to know what someone looks like, to take their measure, so to speak. Why was this never done? Joseph Smith was painted by several painters, an image of his face was cast as a death mask upon his departing this life, so great was the reverence and esteem his followers held for him. Blaine wrote: How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons, who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are proof that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of Meso-America? I am different because I consider all possible explanations, not just the ones that I hope to find. I approach the Bible this way too. ***BLAINE: Well said, but I do doubt
Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards
***BLAINE: Again, as I have mentioned before, I think you assume too much. To say DNA evidence POSITIVELY demonstrates that the Indians have ABSOLUTELY no inheritance from Hebrew people is going a bit far, don't you think? This assumes we know all there is to know about DNA of Hebrew people, and all about Indian DNA too, which is obviously not true. Besides, close examination of the BoM reveals that not all Indians were necessarily Lamanites. It also reveals that the the setting for most of the BoM was a very small area in Middle and Meso America, probalbly not even as large as the state of Texas. Unfortunately too many people assume too much and generalize too much when they read the BoM and make even well meaning commentary about it. I am absolutely convinced, for instance, that most Indians clearly have at least some oriental characteristics. One such example is the Navaho in Arizona, the largest Indian tribe in North America. Research has shown that at least forty percent of them have the oriental fold to their ey es, along with other characteristices commonly found among oriental peoples. -- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lets not forget the fact that DNA evidence positively demonstrates that the Indians have absolutely no inheritance from Hebrew people. None. Zilch. Nada. Check out this web page, and especially the video near the end of the page: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html In this non-technical video, Mormon and non-Mormon scholars and scientists talk about the recent scientific discoveries and their implications regarding the reliability of the Book of Mormon. These honest Mormons admit that the information reveals that the major premise behind the Book of Mormon is false - thereby making Joseph Smith a false prophet. Order the video and share it with your Mormon friends! ***BLAINE: Honest Mormons? There are rebuttals to this video out there that claim all these Mormons are not exactly loyalists--they are well known for their anti-Mormon stances. They have simply garnered a lot of data that proves their ax-grinding is justified. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Indians with Beards Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:44:09 GMT David wrote: Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so there must be more of a connection established to the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards. Peace be with you. David Miller. BLAINE: Describing the connection I am making between art depicting men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites, Jaredites, and Mulekites as only imaginary is, I would say, very cynical. You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO proof tells me he ever even lived. You can't even tell me what the man looked like. Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed, blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what? All you have to go on is your imagination. Yet you accept him unquestioningly. How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons, who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are proof that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of Meso-America? At least we know from BoM descriptions of them that they were fair, large of stature, intelligent, and had a language that was unreadab le except by inspired seers. That is a lot, I would say. We also see huge quantities of evidence that a people did live in Meso America that apparently fits these descriptions, along with having cement houses, barley, etc., as stated in the BoM--all provable now by archeological findings that in the time of Joseph Smith were unprovable. Faith tells me there is a great deal to come. Bible experts and archeologists have had two thousand years to uncover the present wealth of knowledge largely substantiating the Bible, yet you complain that in 200 years we have not acquired a comparable wealth of exact information regarding these peoples. I say this is just plain cynicism on your part. -- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote: ... why not focus on the bearded men facsimilies found in Meso-Amewrica? Neither you nor Kevin apparently want to discuss this highly meaningful archeological fact ... The existence of beards is not unheard of among Indians. Consider the following description of Membertou, an Indian chief in Canada who died in 1611 at over 100 years old: From: http://www.danielnpaul.com/Mi'kmaqGrandChiefMembertou.html Biard wrote that Membertou: was the greatest, most renowned and most formidable savage within the memory
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgmentg
Caroline wrote: Someone asked about Jeffrey Dahmer - or at least that's who I think the poster was referring to when he said homo cannibal. If Jeffrey Dahmer accepted Jesus and if he called upon the name of Jesus and pled the blood of Christ, God would have to love him and say to him, welcome my son wouldn't He? That's the rules isn't it? Who we were and what we did have no bearing on God isn't it? It's just the one criteria - did he or didn't he say the Sinner's prayer isn't it? Ditto for people who may have said it in youth camp when they were 8 and later became a Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin too, right? Do good all your life but still roast in hell if you're Buddhist. Be nasty and eat people but say the Sinner's prayer and you're in, right? Everything else is just blah, blah, blah whatever in God's ears, right? No pleading ignorance, special circumstances, victimization, abuse, insanity, boring sermons BTW, Jeffrey Dahmer did confess Christ and converted before he died. Caroline BLAINE: Hi Caroline!! This is an interesting line of thought. I am thinking about what you have written, will let you know later, maybe, what enters my brain. As for now, I am glad Jeffery D. made some sort of peace with his God, or at least He whom he was taught was God. For some reason, however, I feel a little uneasy with the thought that he got off so easily, just confessing Christ and etc. He destroyed a lot of lives, and I find it hard to believe he will be up there in heaven with a halo after all that.Hmm, as I said, I will give this some thought. I guess what I am thinking at the moment is that repentance may be more difficult and more time consuming than most traditional Christians might believe. I believe it is possible, but the human psych being what it is, self-forgiveness is important, and I feel Jeffery may have some problems in this area. I am reminded of the story of a man who killed an entire family in Viet Nam, and later went off his rocker and had to be committed to an insane asylum--one problem was t hat he kept seeing the family he killed appear at his bedside at night, apparently wanting to know what his justification was. Since he had none, he went off the deep end. I believe it is an inherant human need to justify what one does, and if one cannot do this, he cannot obtain true forgiveness, whether accepting Jesus or no. -- 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] Question for Blaine.
Why is it your church wants to be yoked with Christianity? I noticed this during the Olympics when we were out in the streets preaching, that they made an effort to let the world know they are one. Your prophet today wishes to be in bed with standing together and wishes that we all be one big happy family? You can deny all you want, but preaching at your conferences we have talked with the older mormons that also see this and believe that your church is beyond lukewarm. In fact they consider us as judgment locust for your bonding with everyone. Did not your prophet Joseph Smith keep at arms length away from Christianity? Ruben Israel -- 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] Why hasn't a single BoM site been identified?
BLAINE: Let us reason together as one man reasoneth with another--the following is good meat for reasoning. Q. Why hasn't a single Book of Mormon site been identified? [top] A. This claim is incorrect. I must emphasize the significance of the apparent discovery and confirmation of two significant, previously unknown (even ridiculed) places mentioned in the Book of Mormon: Nahom and Bountiful. They match in terms of function, physical description, geographical location, and even a persisting place name in the case of Nahom. Both sites are in the Arabian Peninsula, as described on my Book of Mormon Evidences page. Both provide powerful evidence pointing to authenticity, at least for the book of First Nephi. It also appears that we have confirmation of the existence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman in locations consistent with Nephi's description. The River of Laman, said by Nephi to be continuously flowing into the Red Sea, was long said to be ridiculous by anti-Mormon critics, who alleged that there were no continuously flowing rivers feeding the Red Sea. But it's there. It's not huge like the Mississippi River, but there is definitely a substantial and continuously flowing stream in an impressive valley by the Red Sea in the place required by the Book of Mormon text. So how do the critics explain that? In addition, a number of Central American sites have been tentatively identified. A number of serious LDS researchers think that the Book of Mormon city of Nephi may have been the large ancient city of Kaminaljuyu, now comprising part of modern Guatemala City (partly covered by modern civilization, unfortunately). Many factors are consistent with the Book of Mormon, allowing for plausibility - but not a positive identification. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon discusses many of the geographical, textual, cultural, and historical factors that provide plausibility for Kaminaljuyu as the city of Nephi. Likewise, an excellent and plausible case has been made for a hill in southern Mexico, el Cerro Vigia, as the ancient place called the Hill Cumorah, where the final battle scene in the book occurred. (The Hill Cumorah in New York State is where the gold plates were eventually buried by Moroni and clearly was not the Book of Mormon location of the final battle.) An excellent account of the many factors poin ting to el Cerro Vigia is given by David A. Palmer in In Search of Cumorah, Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, Utah, 1987. This 3,000 foot high hill appears to meet the requirements that can be extracted from the Book of Mormon account of the two large battles that occurred there (size, terrain, location, presence of many waters, etc.). Sorenson's analysis from a different perspective is consistent with much of Palmer's analysis. Another article of interest, offering specific candidates for a Book of Mormon river and associated lands, is A Correlation of the Sidon River and the Lands of Manti and Zarahemla with the Southern End of the Rio Grijalva (San Miguel) by John L. Hilton and Janet F. Hilton, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1., Spring 1992. Q. Why do Mormons think that new evidence will eventually resolve conflicting data about the Book of Mormon? Why don't you have all the evidence needed to accept it already, as we do for the Bible? [top] A. We can have faith that conflicting data will be resolved because it has been resolved in numerous ways already. Consider the issues of cement, of horses, of barley, of transoceanic voyages, of tents in Mesoamerica, of the ancient use of metal plates, of the existence of Bountiful - all of these were ridiculous errors in the past, which now have serious evidence behind them to lend plausibility to the Book of Mormon. If the text were a fraud, we would expect the flow of evidence to go the other way: as we learn more about the ancient world, the foolishness of the fraud should become more apparent. It's just the opposite. Humility is needed to accept that not all answers will be given on demand. Given that archaeological investigation in the Middle East is done at a pace over 10 times more intensely than in Mesoamerica and has been done for about 10 times as long, we should not be surprised that much more has been found relevant to the Bible than to the Book of Mormon, which is largely the history of a particular family line in what may have been a sea of other lines and even other peoples. We talk about the Aztecs, for example, as one people - overlooking the mind-boggling complexity of the fact that there were over 20 different cultural groups living in the Aztec capital (now Mexico city) when the Spaniards came, with multiple languages, customs, etc. Yet the dominant culture, the Aztecs, is about all we hear of. The details of the many peoples of Mesoamerica are a long way from being understood, and basic assumptions about the most dominant,
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Blaine.
BLAINE: Ruben, long time no see!! Thought you must be off doin' your usual thing of street preachin'. I do not fully understand where you are coming from on your question, Ruben. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always professed being Christian. Joseph Smith was told not to join any of the existing Christian churches of his day, but that has nothing to do with the church professing to be Christian. It just does not now and never has tried to identify itself as being part of the sectarian world, either Catholic or Protestant. Its main theme has always been that the true church and the true gospel as it was in Jesus' time was restored through a prophet. If the leading authorities of today's church try to form a camaraderie with other Christian sects, it is for the sake of emphasizing our love for others regardless of faith or belief--it does not in any way mean we are capitulating in regards to doctrine and our firm belief the LDS Church is still the one and only possesser of the true priesthood and true authority to act in God's name. Heck, Ruben, even the offshoots of our church, the polygs, recognize the L DS Church as the mother Church, as they call us. They believe we have the true authority, and if they can get their marriage sealed in our temples, they all the more consider them legit. Hope that answers your question Ruben, take care, now, and do good every chance you get. -- RUBEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it your church wants to be yoked with Christianity? I noticed this during the Olympics when we were out in the streets preaching, that they made an effort to let the world know they are one. Your prophet today wishes to be in bed with standing together and wishes that we all be one big happy family? You can deny all you want, but preaching at your conferences we have talked with the older mormons that also see this and believe that your church is beyond lukewarm. In fact they consider us as judgment locust for your bonding with everyone. Did not your prophet Joseph Smith keep at arms length away from Christianity? Ruben Israel -- 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] Question for Blaine.
BLAINE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always professed being Christian. Joseph Smith was told not to join any of the existing Christian churches of his day, but that has nothing to do with the church professing to be Christian... Ruben: Well rather then getting into a he said she said response, maybe you could join me at the temple in April and I will introduce you to someone? But you must stay longer than a few minutes and it might do you good. You in? -- 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] Indians with Beards
In a message dated 3/18/2005 5:37:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Miller wrote: Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the I am sure we know that David is using his imagination to the max when he pretends to know what "all who believe the Bible " think on most any subject. I would like an explanation, however, of just exactly why the Lord, in your opinion and teachings, started the Mormon church and how that squares with the biblical teaching of salvation by grace apart from works. Keep in mind that I, for one, do not believe that you nor any other human are outside the influence and grace of the Lord. It seems as though you and Dave agree with this providing an opportunity for discussion between believers correct? Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Question for Blaine.
In a message dated 3/18/2005 8:31:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its main theme has always been that the true church and the true gospel as it was in Jesus' time was restored through a prophet. Beginning with Pentecost, when did the "true church" and the true gospel stray from it's established and pure beginnings? Jd
RE: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture?
Blaine, I have repeatedly posted my justification for the things I beleive to be true regarding the Mormons. I have also repeatedly described in detail why the Mormon jesus and mormon god cannot be the same Jesus and God that are in the Bible. I have demonstrated the cultic nature of the Mormon temple ceremonies, and its obvious tie to freemasonry, another cult. And, in a recent post, I asked you to enumerate the prophecies of JS and how they have come true, which you dodged by saying I asked too many questions. So, perhaps it is you that are ignoring them! I think the burden of demonstrating that his prophecies came true is on you...you are the one stating that his prophecies obviously are either fulfilled or in process of being fulfilled. If it so so obvious, send them in! I also have listed two of JS' prophecies in a recent post that I know have not come true...and their time for fulfilment has passed. TWO! It only takes one to make him a false prophet. The other 50 or so false prophecies are insurance. You dodged that, too. How can you say I give no justification or reasons? Are you asleep? Do you not read my posts? Have short term memory loss? It is certainly not because I have not justified my postion, and on several occasions. Please check the TT archives and get back to me on that, okay? Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hell = Physical Torture? Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:06:14 GMT -- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your mind has been polluted by the heretical LDS works. If you relied on his Word you would clearly see that your impressions of God are all wrong. BLAINE: I keep noticing that you do a lot of labeling, usually in reference to LDS stuff, Perry. Yet I seldom if ever read any solid reasoning or evidence to support your assertions. You just seem to rely on what you have read, usually some crackpot stuff that is, like your own writing, designed to ridicule, label, etc., and which seems to be rooted in a set of commonly agreed upon assumptions that themselves have never been too well defined--just asserted to be true. For instance: 1. You assume/assert the BoM to be fiction, but have never proven your case. Neither has anyone else, for that matter. 2. You assert/assume that the LDS Church is a cult, but again this has not been well enough defined to be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. 3. You assert/assume Joseph Smith was a false prophet, yet ignore his many revelations, prophecies, etc. that obviously are either fulfilled or in process of being fulfilled. 4. You assert/assume the Mormon concept of Jesus Christ to represent a different Jesus, yet seem to shy away from actually delineating why this is being assumed. I suppose I could go on, but for the sake of limiting discussion, will stop, waiting for your reply. I probably will not go to sites with anti-Mormon literature, which you often refer me to. I feel if the concepts are all that clear, you should be able to just jot them down succinctly in Perry-digested form. :) From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] So Perry.getting back to Goddo you really think a Perfect Parent would want to eternally torture their wayward children? To me./that /is illogical. No. As I said before, God would like for NONE of us to perish...you intentionally cast God in a bad light, even though you have been told otherwise many times before, you just do not want to accept it. You have to make God out to be an ogre through the eyes of your protestants so your mormon god seems bigger. It seems illogical to you because you use extra-biblical and non-biblical references to try to define God instead of relying solely on his Word. Your mind has been polluted by the heretical LDS works. If you relied on his Word you would clearly see that your impressions of God are all wrong. Perry -- 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] Fw: Jasc Paint Shop Photo Album 5 images]
In a message dated 3/13/2005 3:56:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Hughes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 12, 2005 11:46 Subject: [Fwd: Jasc Paint Shop Photo Album 5 images] OK - so who's the real Dad? This photo is awesome, to quote Chris Farley. Beautiful baby. Keep having kids, Jonathan. I had 5 and they were (are) an absolute blast and blessing. Congrats, truly. God will bless you as you bless your family. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
DAVEH: OK Kevin.For once we have a bit of agreement between usat least on the surface. I also believe death is the punishment for transgression. However, you seem to want to extrapolate that a bit further than me. And, I may have a different definition of death than you.. To me, death means a separation..of which there are two scenarios. In the case of physical death, that separation is between the spirit and the body. When death occurs, the spirit leaves the mortal body. When one is given eternal life, that spirit and body are recombined as a resurrected being. The second instance of death is a spiritual death, which I understand to mean one is separated from God. Those who transgress God's Law will suffer spiritual death for their sins, unless they accept Jesus and invite the atoning grace of our Savior to return them to the love of God. Do you agree with any of the above, Kevin? If not, how do you define death? As I see it, you further believe that God is going to extend his punishment of death (upon which we agree) beyond a finite event of limited pain to a vindictive and punitive physical torture by throwing the unrepentant sinner into a literal lake of fire. Is that your belief, Kevin? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume that is how you see it.that God is essentially an ogre as described in Perry's post. IF that is how you perceive it, Kevin, I do believe you are drawing unwarranted conclusions as to how a merciful and just God dispenses his justice. What possible reason would God have to physically torture a person forever? What justice is served by such cruelty? Death yeswe can agree. Torture???..No, on that we must disagree. My God of love and mercy is not one who relishes such. If you prefer to believe God tortures people, may the Lord have mercy on you. Kevin Deegan wrote: I just don't see why any Christian would think the Lord would physically and punitively literally toss them into a burning lake to torture them forever. Why is such brutality needed by God? I don't see why it makes sense to anyone who believes God is a loving parent.rather it makes God seem like the ogre Perry mentioned. Maybe when you move in next door to some of the most debased characters who ever walked this earth, you will know why. The same reason homeowners do not want child molestors, murderers, cannibals to move into the neighborhood. There is also a just punishment to consider. You may take lying lightly, but all sin is breaking of God's law. the punishment for lying is the same as Murder, The DEATH SENTENCE. The only way out is accepting God's pardon thru the sacrifice and payment of the death sentence by Jesus Christ. Without that pardon God is too Holy to even look on your sin and will cast you out of His sight forever into the lake of fire so you can be neighbors with a Motley Crew. In God's presence will only be the Pure Redeemed, washed by the Blood of the Lamb! No admittence to those without a Wedding Garment! MT 22 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It is one thing to spank your kid and send him to his room for the night. It is another to toss him into a boiling cauldron knowing that he will be screaming in torment due to physical pain forever. If any Christian wanted to do that to his child.I would question their sanity as a parent AND a Christian. You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomesrebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. DAVEH: My comment about any Christian wanting to do that to his child was not referring to spanking, but rather to using excessive punishment for a child's transgression. When you punish (not that you would ever need to, DavidM!) any of your children, does your punishment reflect the magnitude of the crime (so to speak)? IOWIf one of your kids disobeys one of your requests to read do something simple, would you then take a baseball bat to them and wail on them to within an inch of their life and continue doing such every day for a year? Of course not! Yet many Protestants believe God will do much worse than that. DaveH wrote: Would you be willing to forever physically (and
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Jasc Paint Shop Photo Album 5 images]
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:35:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does that mean John, Bill Jonathan will be coming back with a vengeance? We are back -- but it will take a little time to put things in order. I will say that it was one of the most significant journeys of my life. This belief that the Christ event tore down the wall of separation, that in Him is the Trinity, all of creation and all of humanity, that we cannot excape His presense, that if life is to be lived apart from His, we have become gods unto ourselves, that heaven and hell are extentions of our time spent in this world, that human invention and will and activity have nothing to do with our union with God for that union is IN (eis) Him we are placed there by His intervention, by His will to include and by His act of inclusion (the cross and His subsequent Resurrected Life), that His commandments are not grievous, our being called to love God, ourselves and our neighbor (read "all of mankind"), that God in Christ accepted man including his shame and his good times, that "evangelism" is the preaching of the Christ (read "Word") to a world of people bent on self destructionthat in evangelism, God is calling man out of those things that will destroy man (we call this "salvation" and recognize that this service of God is Him saving man from himself) ; that in and through Israel, God has birthed His salvation and extended it to include all those for whom He died. As surely as God will not be defeated in the establishment of His Assembly, so His death for the whole world is not something that can or was defeated in any way. What God sets out to accomplished, that very thing becomes His will and purpose and accomplishment. In Christ, after thousands of years and a world of frustration, God in Christ could finally say with integrety, " It is finished." The notion that God and sin are not joined in any way has forever been defeated, for it is our God who become sin on our behalf and took all our humanity, including the dark side, back to the spiritual realm. God the Father sees us through the Life of Christ. As a result, He is more than approachable, we actually have life in Him as a part of all creation. Because He became like us in every respect, His work as High Priest is eternally effectual, His mediation as priest is without defeat and our salvation is secure because it is the Christ who established this salvation on our behalf and in our place. I could go on and on -- but not tonight. This Gospel of Christ, the vision of the Truine God, is the most important biblical concept this side of heaven. I have said it before -- if I told you all just how good God has been to me, you all would get jealous !! Never more true than tonight. To God be praise and adoration. Pastor Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Judgment
DAVEH: And if the kid sneers as the paddle is applied to his buttocks.blood may result. And I don't think that is good news for anybody. :'( [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/18/2005 10:52:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are confusing the issue by not identifying the issue at hand. Spanking a child is a form of discipline. It is a way that children are trained. The Torah teaches us that if a child does not respond to such chastening, but rather becomes rebellious and incorrigible, then the parents should take them to the elders to be stoned to death (see Deut. 21). Maybe God would question your sanity for being unwilling to obey Torah on this matter. Aa, the good news of the gospel !! JD The good news is only good for those who apply the blood. It is bad news for those who sneer at it.Terry True and it is bad news for those who listen to the fantasy that we are judged by the Torah (and I speak of spiritual or eternal destiny). Jd -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
