Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Response to Iz:Spoken like a true REPUBLICAN, sadly. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 00:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree Lots of confusion, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:51:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snake’s words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
How would one get Democrat or Republican out of what Izzy writes below? Apparently you wear "political eyeglasses" when reading her posts Lance. On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:07:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Response to Iz:Spoken like a true REPUBLICAN, sadly. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lots of confusion, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:51:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snake’s words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Nope! - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 19, 2005 08:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree How would one get Democrat or Republican out of what Izzy writes below? Apparently you wear "political eyeglasses" when reading her posts Lance. On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:07:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Response to Iz:Spoken like a true REPUBLICAN, sadly. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lots of confusion, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:51:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snake’s words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Maybe Lance is onto something, Judyequating truth and faithfulness with Republicans? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:43 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree How would one get Democrat or Republican out of what Izzy writes below? Apparently you wear political eyeglasses when reading her posts Lance. On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:07:54 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Response to Iz:Spoken like a true REPUBLICAN, sadly. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lots of confusion, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:51:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snakes words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is you will become like God. Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd judyt He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
- Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) principles. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displacesreference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Itis nice to read an article that presents one with something to think about other than "why on earth is this person saying this !!??" More than this, we have words that give us something to consider after we have finished the reading. The post has a crescendo effect all the way to the very last sentence -- which is a keeper. " ..it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure." This thought presents to me an implied imperative and a challenge to renewal.It is a wonderful statement of a reality that shortsteps the will of God for us but does not , at the same time, condemn the reader to a loveless situation and an angry God. At least, this is how God has used these very words in my life . Thank you , Lance, for including this message to TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displacesreference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displacesreference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snakes words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is you will become like God. Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd -- Original message -- From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and indwelling displacesreference to our knowledge of good and evil altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 10:51:18 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd cd: Eve had guilt all over her. God clearly told both AE not to eat of the tree-Just as he tell us today not to break his commandments. To not eat of that tree was a commandment-they broke it they were punished . -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displacesreference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Agreed. Not sure as to your point, however. jd -- Original message -- From: "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 12/18/2005 10:51:18 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd cd: Eve had guilt all over her. God clearly told both AE not to eat of the tree-Just as he tell us today not to break his commandments. To not eat of that tree was a commandment-they broke it they were punished . -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: Lance Muir Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28 Subject: The tree A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you? Some people and Iwere talking about how and whyreligionis always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. Wemeasure the options against principlesinstead of responding/submitting to a Person.Thisnever quite works, we can tell it doesn't,but we thinkit is only because we haven't sufficientlyrefined and nuancedthe principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract.It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestionof the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time,on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displacesreference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy withGod is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations)is virtually inescapable; it is why we are nowmerely conscientious instead of pure. D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree
Lots of confusion, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:51:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Confusion only comes from questioning God words. We only do that when we prefer the snake’s words. Confusion is the result of attempted compromise. Compromise is simply disobedience wearing grey. Iz PS The snake offers immediate gratification. The result is inevitable degradation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:51 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree One other thought: it seems to me that Eve is first confused by outside influences (the snake) and then - out of this confusion -- she commits the sin. I mean, she is created in the image of God and , yet, the temptation is "you will become like God." Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion? If we all share in the same sin (Ro 5:12), do we not share in the same confusion? And, so what?? jd
