Re: [TruthTalk] TT w/o a moderator
I've tried setting up an unmoderated twice and I simply cannot do it again. I had to take down both lists because of the foul language and acrimonius posts. I cannot aid and abet such things. There are forums out there where people may setup their own lists. Many people have the ability now with their own mail server too. Here are two resources if any of you want to setup an unmoderated list: http://groups.yahoo.com http://www.injesus.com Good bye, all. It has been great getting to know you all. Keep in touch with me and each other. God bless. May the peace of God dwell with you richly, David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT w/o a moderator DAVEH: Yikes.can I really be in agreement with Kevin??? If you decide to go that route for awhile, DavidMwhy not deep 6 the ad-hom rule. Who knowsmaybe TT can rise from the ashes like a phoenix!!! Kevin Deegan wrote: David, Since TT has been w/o a Moderator, it seems to have done just fine. Why not just keep the list up w/o one? Breaking up is just so hard to do. -- ~~~ 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. -- 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] Saying Goodbye
Continuing with my farewell impressions... There have been some past members of TruthTalk that deserve mention. Slade and Kay Henson as well as their friend Jeff Powers were always pointing us toward our Hebraic roots. It was an interesting blend of traditionalism in regards to the written word of Scripture and yet liberal social philosophy. Kay's interest in social reform and her work with the messed up children's legal system in Florida will remain in my prayers. Glenn Tabor will be remembered for his passion toward basic foundations of Christianity. Glenn had a knack for bringing out a lot of discussion from people who differed from him. He always carried a pastor's care for everyone on the list, yet he was zealous toward ideology that conformed to traditional Christian beliefs. Laura Hamm likewise will be remembered in my heart as someone who stimulated thinking and was not afraid to jump into waters unknown. She had an ability to hear and seemed very able to represent the foot washing Baptists from time to time. Michael Douglas will always be close to my heart as a firm believer to communing with the Lord in prayer. His dialogue about praying against storms and calamities will not easily be forgotten. He brought to the forum practical considerations for the spiritually inclined. Michael was not content with ideology and philosophy, but ulitmately concerned with where the rubber meets the road in spiritual matters. His life of faith will always be a constant inspiration to my spirit. Jonathan Hughes will be remembered as a passionate person for truth without any fluff. Ideologically on the other side from me, his challenges to my mindset and working philosophical paradigms encouraged and promoted thinking. Caroline Wong will be remembered for being well informed and able to raise issues that I would typically otherwise consider mundane. Terry Clifton will always have a special place in my heart. In many ways, when he was here, he was the resident TruthTalk elder. He served as a conservative anchor, always the calm voice of reason when things became tumultuous. Terry had a knack for being understanding yet unswayed away from the Biblical no-nonsense perspective of truth. More to come later... 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] Saying Goodbye
that formed around many topics on TruthTalk. Thank you Linda for your participation on TruthTalk, which I know was trying for you at times. Last but not least, I thank my daughter Christine for taking time to participate. I tried to get her mother, Caroline, to join us, but she would not forget a time when she posted to another list before TruthTalk and people made the charge that I was posting and pretending to be her. She did not want to deal with that kind of foolishness. Thank you, Christine, for sharing your life with us here. As my life with you will continue beyond TruthTalk, there is not much more for me to say in this forum right now. You are always an inspiration to me and the love of my life. As you know, I am always so proud of you and the choices you make. I realize that I have neglected to name everyone I have appreciated on TruthTalk over the years. Right now I am remembering Pagan Wolf, Jim Elsman, Adrian Horien, Patrick Johnston, Daniel Lee, Eric Melendez, Rudi Lopez, Jason Hartz, Cathy Dunn, Ruthy Lipka, Pete Krostag, Marlin Halverson, Andrew Bain, and many others. Time does not allow me to address everyone. I felt it best to share at least a few thoughts about the ones that I have mentioned. Some wonder why I took so much time to remove the list, but it was a great part of my life for many years. One does not dismantle something like this overnight because it did not come into being overnight. I want to thank everyone for their interest in discussing truth with me. I do not know the future and what kinds of things are ahead of me, but I know that whatever I do, a piece of everyone who has been on TruthTalk will be with me. Thank you all. I hope everyone will feel comfortable writing me from time to time, as the good Lord leads 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] Saying Goodbye
I've been very busy over the weekend and not had time to check email. I had hoped people would use the time to say their goodbyes, but I see many chose to keep their dialogue going. As I had mentioned, I hoped to send some impressions about TruthTalk members. So, I begin now. One of the TruthTalk members who I have appreciated the most is Dave Hansen. Why? Well, most of my interaction with Mormons over the years has been rather superficial. Virtually anytime I have gotten into discussions on a substantial level in person with Mormons, the door to future dialogue has closed after a few meetings. I know Kevin indicates having a greater success in this area, and I don't know why the difference, but most of my doors always close down. With DaveH on TruthTalk, I have been able to explore more about Joseph Smith and the teachings of Mormonism more than just about anywhere else. Blaine has also contributed, as well as a few others, including Dave's nephew. The bottom-line is that my knowledge and understanding of his religion is much greater now than it was before TruthTalk. I realize that there will be some TruthTalk members who think that all such knowledge is vain and that it might be foolish for me to spend time learning it. I don't see it that way. The reasons it is beneficial are too numerous for me to enumerate right now, so I will at this time simply say thank you to our Mormon participants on TruthTalk. Although I am probably more contrary to the religious establishment of Mormonism than I have ever been before, I have appreciated the opportunity to hear your perspective and engage you in dialogue. As I have explained in the past, the biggest smoking gun for me in regards to your religion is the Book of Abraham and the manuscripts we have which Joseph Smith claimed to translate. Another big issue for me is the polygamy of Joseph Smith and the fragmented nature of Mormonism after Joseph Smith's departure. Thank you Dave for many years of dialogue and for the several books you have sent me in the past. I will not forget you. I will continue to pray for you. Surely you are ingrained in your religion and your relationships in your religion will likely keep you there, but I will continue to pray that the Lord open your eyes to the true nature of his church. David Miller - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye Well, it is Friday. Time to say our goodbyes. I will leave the list up through the weekend to give time for lurkers to catch up and perhaps make their final post. Please bring the other conversations to a close and focus on saying your final farewells. I will start with this one, but I plan to send some more posts where I talk about past members of TruthTalk and some of my impressions, for good or for bad. In this post, I want to talk about TruthTalk in general. In my opinion, much of the difficulty of TruthTalk these last several years has been related to a problem described by the proverb, FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT. I have seen this same phenomena in home churches too. When a small group of people become so thoroughly familiar with each other that much of what others would say become somewhat predictable, people become more free to speak their mind and tend to focus more upon faults than strengths in the other person. Marriages often illustrate this same difficulty. The time frame for this seems to start at around 4 years, and within 10 years, it becomes rather entrenched. Those groups that tend to be focused upon itself exhibit more of this tendency than groups that tend to reach out and pull in fresh people. On TruthTalk, there was a time when that polarizing of groups became rather noticeable. There came to be the liberals versus the conservatives, which eventually turned into the liberals versus the fundamentalists. When this first came to light, I questioned the group whether we should encourage this kind of sectarian dialogue. Several on the list thought it was natural human nature and fine not only to allow it but encourage it. Interestingly, some of those most outspoken for this perspective are no longer on the list. My personal judgment in hindsight is that any kind of sectarianism like this is counter productive for good discussion. What happens is that people speak more from bias and emotion rather than engage in a teamwork of discovery. People tended to work harder on putting the other side in their place rather than trying to hear whether or not there was even a grain of truth in what was being said. Overall, I have appreciated TruthTalk very much. It has been a source of motivation for me to study issues that I might otherwise have left untouched. My heart has been warmed by many who have posted here, and my mind has been enriched with a diversity of viewpoints to consider
Re: [TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye
Continuing with my farewell impressions... Although Bill Taylor only recently came onto TruthTalk and our interaction was rather limited, I have to say that much of his discussions with me have left an impact. While his mindset of the Incarnation and how that impacts evangelism is very different from my own, I see the grain of truth in his thinking and have incorporated elements of it in how I approach evangelism. I realize that saying this may be incomprehensible to some on TruthTalk, maybe even raise red flags of alarm, but it is very true nonetheless. Jesus did indeed die for the sins of the whole world, and part of our message to others is what are they doing about that fact. What is their response? Some other ways that I have appreciated Bill is simply observing his theological training and manner of communicating. Some names dropped by him and others like Lance Muir also have blessed me in directing me toward further reading and study along theological lines. While some on TruthTalk question the value of such, I consider it all part of our culture and an area of formal training that I have lacked. Therefore, I have appreciated Lance and Bill in bringing to the table names and works in a framework with which I have been unfamiliar. Lance too has effected me positively in several ways. We approach truth differently. Lance takes a much more holisitic approach and is altogether people oriented. His criticism of my reductionism and orientation toward dictum has not gone unnoticed. It has heightened some of my appreciation for the Biblical approach to the person of Jesus Christ. After all, the entire gospel is centered more on the person of Christ than it is his teaching and sayings. This is not to say that I have forsaken the teaching of Christ altogether, but rather that I have appreciated aspects of Lance which bring attention back toward the person of Christ and even each other as people. Lance sees truth through people more than through expressions and teaching. I have learned to appreciate that about him, and to recognize its Biblical nature. I only wish we had more time to explore it on TruthTalk in a way that would have been mutually edifying. Lance also brought me into touch with Debbie. Although my interaction with Debbie has been rather limited, I have appreciated her writing ability and feel blessed to have been touched by her life. Debbie at times is able to hear and see past her own mindset, and other times she is able to forcefully articulate a viewpoint that can be quite convincing. Like Lance, she appreciates the personal over the wrangling of words, and that is refreshing and brings a different focus at times when such is needed. I had hoped to finish my impressions by this weekend, but too much has been going on. Last night we held a Strings Concert here at my home where all five of my children performed. More than 80 people attended. Then today we had church here at my home late into the evening. One of the students at UF has taken up preaching now too... great praise report... he preached for the first time last Friday and plans to continue carrying that torch every Friday. He has drawn many other students in this move of God that is happening at the University of Florida. We had praise reports of two people healed of cancer this week at church... lots of things happening. So, please forbear with me if I extend TruthTalk yet another day so I can finish saying my goodbyes. I guesss there is not much I can say to get everyone to stop posting dialogue and to say their goodbyes, so I will finish mine as soon as I can and then take down the list. God bless you all. My prayers are with you Lance and your mother during this time. Please let us know if she was a believer in Jesus Christ. Thanks. 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] Fw: Williams on Creationism
If I were teaching high school biology right now, I would spend one day out of the whole year to discuss the creation / evolution controversy. I would consider some of the stronger arguments for creation. Furthermore, I would teach them that science considers any mention of a Creator as something that puts a theory outside the realm of science, and I would teach them that the scientific establishment does not consider any model of origins that involves a Creator to be something that science could consider. Of course, I would also express my disagreement with this notion because religious theories that make empirical predictions can be tested scientifically. This is ignored by the scientific establishment in their zeal to outlaw religious theories in schools. By the way, every past colleague of mine that I have argued this point, about creationist models being scientifically testable, have had to agree with me that I was right, after MUCH arguing, but they will only concede that every Creationist model of origins that is scientifically testable has already been falsified. The ones that have not been falsified are still unscientific. Go figure. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Just how wide do you wish the door open, scientifically speaking? This issue is akin to the 'prayer in school' issue. (Goose gander thingy) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 16:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just think it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against it,and its place in thehistory of science and religion. Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism You may feel to teach them that the universe is geocentric if you like. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Im so thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties took over?) izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics, render unto Cesear Unless of course you are swayed by the Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who digresses. My point? If the church had not surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of benevolent blessings to others. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Correct, and some of this activity proposes empirical predictions that are testable by empirical means. For example, if a model of creation says that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't that a prediction that is testable scientifically? Don't we have empirical clocks to test this prediction? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that which one has just witnessed over the last week or so. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this. I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.He also may have been involved in other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next day. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist. Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for what? Com'on David, this is impossible. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand your point. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. That A E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system ??? We are still waiting?? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that i
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
Misinformation here, Lance. TruthTalk did not fire anybody. The
moderator resigned. I still think he would have done a fine job if he had
allowedsome dialogue about what he was doing.
I do agree, however, that Christians (and you know how I use
thisterm)cannot be trusted anymore than anyone else.
The liberty of the teacher should be allowed, whether we trust the teacher
or not. Our ability to communicate with the teacher should be enough to
help curb any undesirablebehavior. I favor communication and
persuasion over censorship. How about you?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:49
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Censorship you say, David? TT just fired a
censor? Christians can be no more trusted than anyone else. I'd not expect you
to agree on this though in granting 'Senator' CDM a stint you illustrated my
point.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 16:49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Let the teacher decide what is relevant. They don't teach all the
competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem? The
problem of censorship should concern you because the truth is not afraid of
evidence. You should be concerned whenever one side uses legal
maneuvers and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being heard.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
And who is going to present these competing versions of
creation -- the average Joe school teacher
?? Do you have any idea what an antagonist educator would do
with such information? Actually, this "creationism in
the school" thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !!
jd
--
Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where
Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody
Home? Think, McFly, Think."
To further elucidate my point:having numerous
creationist models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our
educational system. There are numerous models of evolution as
well. The premise by which you think you can rest your case is
ratherelusive.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal
a candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that
one over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms
securely locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for
assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped
around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?'
David: You sound a little like Homer in
your reply.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006
10:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Lance
wrote:
There are as many
'species' of creationists as fish.
The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your
point?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23,
2006 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
There are as many 'species' of
creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of
computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already
come up with. I rest my case your honor.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 2
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
The history of public education is a little more complicated than
this. I think the more forceful argument was making education available to
those who were not wealthy. The non-sectarian nature of it came in because
the originators, men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Horace Mann,
etc., were Deists and Unitarian, along with the fact that the U.S. was a melting
pot of various religious groups. One simply cannot offer public education
for all without setting aside the individual religious beliefs and focusing upon
the knowledge that was more common among the different religious sects.
What many people do not realize is that the concept of schools came from
Christianity. Almost all the institutions of learning first came about
through the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Calvinists,
thePuritans, etc. Interestingly, non-Christian education never
materialized until everyone was forced to pay for it through taxation, through
the efforts of menlike Horace Mann. Mann converted from Calvinism to
the Unitarian church.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:12
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism
Public education was first offered as an alternaive to Christian
education.
jd
--
Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it is not 'strange'. In most cases
'creation science' reflects neither.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 24, 2006 08:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism
She should not teach them that the universe IS geocentric, but she
should teach them the geocentric model, evidence for and against
it,and its place in thehistory of science and religion.
Isn't it strange how science has no problem doing this, but it does have a
problem with creation science being dealt with in the same way?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:30
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
You may feel to teach them that the
universe is geocentric if you like.
- Original Message -
From:
ShieldsFamily
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 23:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
Im so
thankful that my 4 grandchildren are being homeschooled so they can be
taught the Truth! Lance and jd; should it be illegal for them to be
taught about Creationism at home? If not, why should it be illegal for
them to be taught anywhere else? Do you have any idea about the
Christian roots of our public education system (before the lefties
took over?) izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
DeeganSent:
Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB
Our Job is NOT the school system or Politics,
render unto Cesear
Unless of course you are swayed by the
Reconstructionists.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What in the hell do you think I have been
talking about? You are so far off course here, as to be
just plain silly. I am not a "big banger" nor do I believe
that a lung fish is ancient family. In fact, I am
with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time for
evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean
evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is
I who digresses.
My point? If the church had not
surrendered its college ageyoung people to the Unisersity
system, we would not need this discussion.
The church is not in the High School and our senior class has yet to
convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that WE DON'T NEED
TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF
Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion
I have seen NOBODY on TruthTalk express the theology of Gary North. You guys sound to me like the way you hearJudy talking authoritatively about Torrance. :-) It is obvious that you do not understand the theology of North and others on TruthTalk. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion You certainly have! (see Iz, Judy, Kevin David) Stage direction: The word 'certainly' should be spoken so as to provide the same emphasis/tone that 'Ollie' had when saying 'here's another fine mess you've gotten me into, Stanley...' - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 09:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion I have never heard of Gary North, but I see his theology in much that has been written on TT. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Funny, I would've thought that you and Gary would be best buds. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 24, 2006 07:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion Bible N Sword! Here are some interesting quotes from Calvinist Gary North (Reformed Catholic Taliban) This is what happens when one thinks they are a Jew, they actually have joined themselves to the synogogue of Satan. "The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder. Gary North The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16). Gary New Geneva North The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary (death to NON Paedobaptists) North written from New Geneva Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily. Gary North Satan cannot win. Why not? Because he has denied God's sovereignty and disobeyed God's law. But Moses was told explicitly, God's blessings come only from obedience. Satan will not win because he has abandoned God's tool of dominion, biblical law. Gary North (sounds CALVINistic to me)There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future. Gary "we are the replacement" North What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion. Gary (enforce the law with the sword) North " Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves. Gary NorthThe battle for the mind, some fundamentalists believe, is between fundamentalism and the institutions of the Left. This conception of the battle is fundamentally incorrect. The battle for the mind is between the Christian reconstruction movement, which alone among Protestant groups takes seriously the
[TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye
Well, it is Friday. Time to say our goodbyes. I will leave the list up through the weekend to give time for lurkers to catch up and perhaps make their final post. Please bring the other conversations to a close and focus on saying your final farewells. I will start with this one, but I plan to send some more posts where I talk about past members of TruthTalk and some of my impressions, for good or for bad. In this post, I want to talk about TruthTalk in general. In my opinion, much of the difficulty of TruthTalk these last several years has been related to a problem described by the proverb, FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT. I have seen this same phenomena in home churches too. When a small group of people become so thoroughly familiar with each other that much of what others would say become somewhat predictable, people become more free to speak their mind and tend to focus more upon faults than strengths in the other person. Marriages often illustrate this same difficulty. The time frame for this seems to start at around 4 years, and within 10 years, it becomes rather entrenched. Those groups that tend to be focused upon itself exhibit more of this tendency than groups that tend to reach out and pull in fresh people. On TruthTalk, there was a time when that polarizing of groups became rather noticeable. There came to be the liberals versus the conservatives, which eventually turned into the liberals versus the fundamentalists. When this first came to light, I questioned the group whether we should encourage this kind of sectarian dialogue. Several on the list thought it was natural human nature and fine not only to allow it but encourage it. Interestingly, some of those most outspoken for this perspective are no longer on the list. My personal judgment in hindsight is that any kind of sectarianism like this is counter productive for good discussion. What happens is that people speak more from bias and emotion rather than engage in a teamwork of discovery. People tended to work harder on putting the other side in their place rather than trying to hear whether or not there was even a grain of truth in what was being said. Overall, I have appreciated TruthTalk very much. It has been a source of motivation for me to study issues that I might otherwise have left untouched. My heart has been warmed by many who have posted here, and my mind has been enriched with a diversity of viewpoints to consider and examine. Some on TruthTalk have steered my thinking in certain directions that I might otherwise not have gone. Some have blessed me by pointing me to resources and individuals that have previously been outside of my realm of study. In some future posts, I will discuss some of the members of TruthTalk who have most impacted me and how they influenced me. 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] on Creationism
Lance wrote: There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your point? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message ------ From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose. John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests God is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this could be presented into the secular system of education without it being coopted by the fundies -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where Biff is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody Home? Think, McFly, Think." To further elucidate my point:having numerous creationist models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our educational system. There are numerous models of evolution as well. The premise by which you think you can rest your case is ratherelusive. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal a candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that one over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms securely locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for assistance. The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped around candy bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?' David: You sound a little like Homer in your reply. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 10:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism Lance wrote: There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your point? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this fact? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. Scary. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have many and varied points of view about anything and everything and this is no measure by which to gauge what is needful or true. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- HUH ??? From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] So? There isn't a single view of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either. What does that prove? judyt On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere be
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
John wrote: Believe in God's word is fundy code for believe as I do. After all this time, you still don't understand. If it is code for anything, it is: line up with my understanding of God's Word here, or show me what the true understanding of God's Word is and help me to line up with it. The liberals say, God's Word can interpreted in many different ways so that none of us can be sure what it means; therefore, nobody can be dogmatic about any particular viewpoint. John wrote: When we have been dispersed, take with you the knowledge that not one single Rad Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what doctrine they are talking about. I think Kevin is the only fundamentalist left on TT. He certainly does not fit your characterization from my perspective. He has patiently explained what doctrine he is talking about. John wrote: You must obey the commandments !!! they yell to the others. What commandments --- love one another, treat others as you would be treated, do not judge with finality, strive to be as mature as God is? Do not lust. Be angry and sin not? Is that it? They make it sound as if they have commandments no else has -- and it turns out , they do not. Just a big deal over the very same things all of us practice. Sigh You should ask yourself why some of us hear a fundamentalist like Kevin and say, Amen!, while others hear him and say, Oh My! If everyone were truly all practicing the same thing, we would not hear both of these reactions. 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] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and
speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do
with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't understand
your point.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism
So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support.
That A E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or
an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144
hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including a
drink of water because my mouth was getting dry.
Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot agree
on much of anything. Which version goes into the school system
??? We are still waiting??
jd
--
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that
prove? judyt
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know
this --
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the
whole church.
jd
--
Original message -- From: "David Miller"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John wrote:
The world in which we live would reject
any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
IMO. But creationism in the
schools? Could
that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
fundamentalist take-over of the culture?
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on
purpose.
John wrote:
But to allow a mere statement that suggests God
is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this
could be presented into the secular system of
education without it being coopted by the fundies
-- go for it. But I doubt that it
can. What a shame
that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity
to introduce the Creator to others.
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.
David Miller
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Actually, there is some good stuff that comes from ICR too. As I said before, they serve a function in our society which I think is good.If I'm not too embarrassed to read Lance Muir, I will not be too embarrassed to read ICR approved material. :-) David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction=""> Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articlesaction=""> But being that it is ICR research you may be too embarrassed to read it. ; ) http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=homeaction="">David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry?Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David?I'm glad you asked.There are several things you would learn:1. You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather than cooling over a million years.2. You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one.3. You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of origins.4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence.The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution controversy.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.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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
To believe fundamental Christianity means to accept fundamental tenets of Christianity. To believe fundamentalism means to embrace a sect of Christianity which hammers on the fundamentals. What if that ism sect said that only the KJV was inspired, or that believers need to sell all, forsake possessions, and live in communes like the early believers did, or that anyone who did not speak in tongues and heal the sick were not living in the same faith as the early believers? I could go on and on. The problem with believing in any ism is that if error creeps into the ism sect at all, it infects the whole group. So I prefer the concept of believing in fundamental Christianity but not believing in fundamentalism. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Then maybe you can flesh it out for the rest of us. I am sure Lance can not/will not I am sure we can see the difference, but just what are the symptoms of that particular ISM? David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance wrote: Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... FundamentalISM ought not be believed by anyone. FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes. 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] Henry Morris
I'm embarrassed about some of the arguments they make. Morris is not really a scientist and does not seem to understand the science side very well. I've spoken to Morris in person one on one, so my opinion is not based solelyupon what I have read from him. ICR operates like a religious organization in approving of certain people and disapproving of others. This is not to say that everything they do is bad. On the contrary, they have made good contributions to the subject. From the perspective of science, however, it is a lot of religion to wade through. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Henry Morris I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and that whole ICR group over there. What exactly are you embarrassed about? Henry Morris B.S., with honors in civil engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939 Hydraulic Engineering M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948 Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950 LL.D Litt.D Faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57) Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970) Author of over 45 books regarding Creation-Evolution David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Miller wrote: I hate it when theologians are embarrassed of giving glory to the Creator in school.Lance wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM)There is more to this issue that this. Is he embarrassed of certain brands of creationism? Of course. I am too. I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and that whole ICR group over there. At the same time, they serve a purpose in what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator from our public schools.You say it is a NON-ISSUE? I consider such a statement ignorant in the extreme. Deceptive to the core. There is one thing that the ICR group has illustrated, and that is that this is an issue.I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was elected to be President of Student Government at the University of Florida. I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF just because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful. He confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology at Oxford. He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination / interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the classroom. If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would have tolerated his creationist convictions. I wish I could convey to you the grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who would not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design theories should be considered in school.I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis. When the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed in the day of our Lord. The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he depicted the way science really operates. These theologians who object to Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little bit more.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.orgIf you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Good. Please write me with a review when you have done so. I would be interested in how a theistic evolutionist would consider this information. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism I will give it a read, David. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 13:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry? Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David? I'm glad you asked. There are several things you would learn: 1. You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather than cooling over a million years. 2. You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one. 3. You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of origins. 4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence. The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution controversy. 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] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
I'm not a good communicator, Lance. I have been convinced of this, and I become more convinced the older I get. I try really hard, but I am frequently misunderstood. Nothing I have tried can cure this. It is a thorn in my side that only grace enables me to endure. It constantly humbles me to realize how bad I am at communicating. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? I do know this Iz, that my friends and I have puzzled more over David than anyone on TT over the years. We don't know if he WON'T or CAN'T see.(I opt for won't.) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 14:46 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Yes, it's always the fault of the communicator (whenever attempting to communicate with you-know-who.) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? It just might be the case that YOU are not as good a communicater as YOU believe yourself to be, David. Ah well, David, soon a long rest from TT and, onto things more important! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 13:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: As to mantras David, yours 'I have only the truth and, all of the truth all of the time is neither borne out by Scripture nor reality. This is not my mantra. We have a communication problem here. I do not believe that I have only the truth or all of the truth all of the time. I don't believe that is true about anybody. David Miller Too tired with being misunderstood to continue... -- 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. -- 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: Williams on Creationism
The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 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] Carl Baugh
I talked to Carl once on the telephone. He was kind enough to return my phone call. The problem is that he made some huge mistakes in regards to the Paluxy River beds and it greatly hurt the evidence that might actually be there for a recent creation. The evolutionists were all over his mistake and have discounted his entire work because of it. The jury is still open for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias of scientists first hand. David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh DAVEH: Note to DavidM and other TTers. For the first time, I just watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN (Thursday nights) program about science and the Bible. How do you folks perceive him? -- ~~~ 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. -- 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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Thank you, Judy, for being perceptive and understanding me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc Then I suggest that those of you who are titillated by this kind of thing take G with you and form your own List because this is not only rude it is divisive and sectarian - Oh thou discerner of sects DM does not do this. He works hard to try and communicate with others wherever they are at -This is preferring one's brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to some. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It should be obvious why G does this. It is to some of us. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say about ppl who like to dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note none of these are questions they are all answers. What was the question? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how" means thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending him) On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..the difference betw her Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion is suspect On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (note the quotes) On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .. apprehend Christ.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
Supply all the names of real scientists that you like, Lance. It does not change the facts about the position of the scientific establishment. I'm talking about organizations like theNational Academy of Sciences. They make a big legal case concerning howcreation science is religion and therefore it is ILLEGAL to teach it in public schools. Any mention of a Creator makes it RELIGION instead of SCIENCE. Their position is that science and religion occupytwo separate realms of human experience. They accept the fact thatmany scientists are deeply religious, but they insist that the two cannot be combined. Therefore,any mention of a Creator in science is forbidden. I reject the notion that science and religion do not overlap. By the way, the NAS also makes bigmention of how most religious groups have concluded that evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins. In other words,the scientific establishmentloves guys like R. Williams who help them keep the acknowledgement of God out of the classroom. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism David says that 'the scientific establishment has...'. Look, David, if the generalization works for you then, OK! I already told you that I'd supply the names of real, as opposed to pretend, scientists, who are themselves believers (I supplied a couple of names) who hold to a variety of positions on this matter. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 14:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this fact? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. Scary. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that this level of proof has not been achieved includes the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned Darwinism because they became convinced that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why would you want to warp young minds with useless information that is not proven? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! Amazing Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major school system I am sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
Let the teacher decide what is relevant. They don't teach all the
competing ideas of evolution either, so what is the problem? The problem
of censorship should concern you because the truth is not afraid of
evidence. You should be concerned whenever one side uses legal maneuvers
and rhetoric to prevent the other side from being heard.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:50
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
And who is going to present these competing versions of creation
-- the average Joe school teacher ?? Do you have any
idea what an antagonist educator would do with such
information? Actually, this "creationism in the school"
thingy is really starting to sound like a bad idea !!
jd
--
Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You remind me, Lance, of another show... Back to the Future, where Biff
is hitting Marty McFly on the head, "Hello, Hello, Anybody Home?
Think, McFly, Think."
To further elucidate my point:having numerous creationist
models of origins is not a reason to exclude them from our educational
system. There are numerous models of evolution as well. The
premise by which you think you can rest your case is
ratherelusive.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Homer Simpson, while attempting to steal a
candy bar from a vending machine, got his arm stuck. He dragged that one
over to another for a second attempt thus getting both arms securely
locked in. Somehow, with his nose, he managed to dial 911 for assistance.
The operator asked Homer 'Are each of your hands wrapped around candy
bars?' Homer replied, 'your point being?'
David: You sound a little like Homer in your
reply.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006 10:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
Lance
wrote:
There are as many
'species' of creationists as fish.
The same can be said for evolutionists. So what is your
point?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on
Creationism
There are as many 'species' of
creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of
computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come
up with. I rest my case your honor.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 23, 2006
06:44
Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw:
Williams on Creationism
Why advocate teaching what you don't know
JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves
with "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence
that
this level of proof has not been achieved
includes the long list of scientists and others who have
abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced
that the scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So
why
would you want to warp young minds with
useless information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school
systemsand you are talking about religious
people!!! Amazing
Maybe we should install a different creationist version for
every major school system
I am sure we can find enough
fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest
idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be happy.
CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL
MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
From:
Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism
I know many scientists who are Christians and hold to theistic evolution. That does not mean that they bring that view in when they practice science. They are not allowed and they will be the first to tell you. I don't see myself as a fundamentalist, but I'm not going to fight with those who characterize me as such. I like Pat Robertson. He is not a dufus from my perspective. I do not favor the idea of forcing the teaching of creation in schools. I am against the notion of forbidding teachers from dealing with this subject matter. I'm against theidea of it being illegal to teach creationscience in schools.I have known many high school teachers that would not have the problem that you outline below. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism Daivd, I have several books on my shelves written by Christian scientists proclaiming some version of theistic evolution. Secondly,you and are both members of the fundamentalist community. If you have missed the M.O. of any number of our brethren, I haven't. Look at Pat Robertson. A Dufus of major proportions. He has his foot in his mouth so often they now measure that cavity in terms of shoe size !! The cause of Christ would becomeeven more difficult if we allowed this to happen. At least the way it is now, we (the Christian community) can somewhat hide these guys from society. The KKK was made up of mostly Christian claiming people. Can you imagine? "OK, students,we have just completedour study on evolution from a scientific point of view. Now , we enter into the Christian notion of creation -- or should I say the several versions of same !! (and the teacher smiles.) We only had space in the text book for five such theories. I personally do not believe any of them -- and I need to make that clear to you before "they" pass some law that says I cannot influence your thinking with such a statement -- but I will do the best I can.Before I begin, how many of you care about any of this... show of hands, please . I said "show of " . oh, I get get it. Well , we have to consider each of these accounts of creation, anyway, and there will be a test. I must say, it seems a bit odd for me. I mean, I wil l be making a presentation of a biblical nature, but , of course, we are not permitted to present from the Bible -- so I really do not know why this is not being done in church .. but here goes ..." jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really do not understand how it is that you think Fundies have destroyed any opportunity for creationism in schools. The problem is that the scientific establishment has taken the position that any mention of a Creator departs from science. Lance's position of theistic evolution is flatly rejected by science. So the Fundies are not hindering creationism in schools. Scientists are. Are you really blind to this fact? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism With much debate, the Fundies destroy any opportunity to place "creationism" into the school programs for the reason stated below. Amen. And, again, a foot in the door would only allow the warring hordes (Rad Fundies) to swarm our educational institutions and run helter skelter -- yelling and screaming at each other while, at the very same time, claiming victory for the Right Side. Scary. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are as many 'species' of creationists as fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your honor. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 06:44 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove evolution do we need to concern ourselves
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Interesting. I think I hear much, much better than I articulate. In fact, I'm sure of it. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:You articulate well. You apprehend, IMO, less well. You write like a 'neat freak'. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 14:58 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? I'm not a good communicator, Lance. I have been convinced of this, and I become more convinced the older I get. I try really hard, but I am frequently misunderstood. Nothing I have tried can cure this. It is a thorn in my side that only grace enables me to endure. It constantly humbles me to realize how bad I am at communicating. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? I do know this Iz, that my friends and I have puzzled more over David than anyone on TT over the years. We don't know if he WON'T or CAN'T see.(I opt for won't.) - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 14:46 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Yes, it's always the fault of the communicator (whenever attempting to communicate with you-know-who.) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:30 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? It just might be the case that YOU are not as good a communicater as YOU believe yourself to be, David. Ah well, David, soon a long rest from TT and, onto things more important! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 13:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: As to mantras David, yours 'I have only the truth and, all of the truth all of the time is neither borne out by Scripture nor reality. This is not my mantra. We have a communication problem here. I do not believe that I have only the truth or all of the truth all of the time. I don't believe that is true about anybody. David Miller Too tired with being misunderstood to continue... -- 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. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Do you think it should be illegal to teach in schools, or do you just think it is good advice not to mention the Creator in schools? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:Is that all you were meaning to say concerning RW? If that's it then, I'm with RW on this one. I don't think it should be taught in schools either. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 15:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism The CNN report: Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. So how have I mischaracterized him? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David:YIKES!! You mischaracterize both Williams and his position. DOUBLE YIKES!! I know that you will continue to do so. You are truly trapped, David. You've bound yourself with your own theology (not, as you believe, Scripture). Your teachers will one day answer for what they've done to you and, what you now do to others.Yikes! Yikes! Yikes (that'd be triple yikes) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 10:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 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. -- 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.
I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what
he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the land masses to
divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the
land and water to do what he said.He also may have been involved in
other ways that we don't understand right now. Do you see it
differently? It does not have anything to do with resting for the next
day.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on
Creationism
David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have
ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist.
Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time
to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is
rather simple -- you have somehow lost the context of my
statement. My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour
period. To say that it is metaphorical doesnot
mean that God did not create the world and even in the sequence
depicted -- at least not to me. Such an admission , on
my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific"
as we understand that term , today. Look -- do you
really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed
a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for
what? Com'on David, this is impossible.
jd
--
Original message -- From: "David Miller"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith
and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak words have
to do with how long it took for the world to come into being? I don't
understand your point.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams
on Creationism
So which fundamentalist version of creation do you
support. That A E were spirit people. A 6000 year
date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that
says it took God 144 hours to speak words that canbe
spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just did it in 24 big
ones !! including a drink of water because my mouth was
getting dry.
Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school
system ??? We are still waiting??
jd
--
Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you get it JT?
TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does
that prove? judyt
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I
know this --
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by
the whole church.
jd
--
Original message -- From: "David Miller"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John wrote:
The world in which we live would reject
any mention of God in the evolutionary process,
IMO. But creationism in the
schools? Could
that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical
fundamentalist take-over of the culture?
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on
purpose.
John wrote:
But to allow a mere statement that suggests God
is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If
this
could be presented into the secular system of
education without it being coopted by the fundies
-- go for it. But I doubt that it
can. What a shame
that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces
Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh
Lance wrote: Would you apply the word 'bias' equally to yourself and, to Judy with the same force? No, I would not. I have a bias, but it is not as strong as the bias in place when a person has the establishment behind him. The establishment makes people a little lazy in their thinking. Me, I have to be right if I'm disagreeing with the establishment. They only have to tote the party line, and that reinforces their bias. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh David:Would you apply the word 'bias' equally to yourself and, to Judy with the same force? - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 15:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh I talked to Carl once on the telephone. He was kind enough to return my phone call. The problem is that he made some huge mistakes in regards to the Paluxy River beds and it greatly hurt the evidence that might actually be there for a recent creation. The evolutionists were all over his mistake and have discounted his entire work because of it. The jury is still open for me on this matter, because I have seen the bias of scientists first hand. David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] Carl Baugh DAVEH: Note to DavidM and other TTers. For the first time, I just watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN (Thursday nights) program about science and the Bible. How do you folks perceive him? -- ~~~ 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. -- 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. -- 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] Modalism the RESTORATION
Yes, the Restoration movement we have discussed in the past. It involves a lot more than David Millard. In fact, somebody posted an article by Alexander Campbell (one of the founders of the Church of Christ movement)that criticized Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I'm sure DaveH remembers that discussion. It was all a very fascinating historical discussion. As you know, Joseph Smith adopted Campbell's label of Church of Christ originally. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism the RESTORATION What is also interesting is they have roots in the Restoration movement. via David Millard (contemporary of Joe who lived Published 13 miles away.) Elias Smith see links below. David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting, Kevin. The LDS believes in henotheism (a type of polytheism) and modalism at the same time? How can this be? DaveH, please let us know your thoughts about this.David Miller- Original Message - From: "Kevin Deegan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:18 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism the RESTORATION[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, Modalism !!Sort of Like the RESTORATIONISTS of the pre "Church of Christ" -"CHRIST-ian church"?Sounds more like your HERITAGE!The guys who thaought, the only name for the TRUE church is to have thename of CHRIST thus the Christian Church!http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jburnett/eshm/ESHM.HTMhttp://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_009/rq00903olbricht.htmhttp://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1960s/vol_9_no_3_contents/olbricht.htmlSome of these fellas Like David Millard, lived a scant 13 miles fromJoe Smith and thus the MODALISM in the BoM!"Book of Mormon theology is generally modalistic. In the Book ofMormon, God and Jesus Christ are not distinct beings." (New Approachesto the Book of Mormon, 1993, pages 82, 96-99, 103-104, 110)"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world toredeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and theSon. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my sonsand my daughters." (Ether 3:14)http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/gods_1.htm--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times "harlot church" is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not referring to any "Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is "Unity in diversity" how you see the Godhead or "Trinity?" JD On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has occ
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
There is room for us to have different perspectives about how God created, but none of us should disagree with the notion that God is the Creator. To suggest that schools not teach even the possibility that God is the Creator is so ludicrous that I can't believe we are even talking about this or that you would defend this Bishop. Deception is the only word for it. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know this -- there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose. John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests God is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this could be presented into the secular system of education without it being coopted by the fundies -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Let me try and break it down for you. Fire normally consumes the fuel from which it originates. This is why we do not have experience with the idea of an unquenchable fire. Even the sun will burn out one day, because the fuel which is burning there will be used up. The bush that Moses saw was different. The bush was not consumed. The fire existed without consuming the fuel. Given this observation, that the fuel was not consumed, it serves as an observation of the idea that a fire might exist that does not consume fuel and would therefore never be extinguished. This does not PROVE the idea of an unquenchable fire, because there are other possible explanations for what he observed, but it is evidence for it because it was a fire that was different from our normal experiences with fire, an observation that suggests a fire that burns without showing any indication of ending and without consuming that which itengulfs. Does this help you understand the logic any better? David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 but it does logically support the idea that he is capable (of creating an unquenchable fire), even though the bush is not burning right now.DAVEH: I'd (respectfully) say your logic is flawed on this one, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science book" per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called "science" Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ 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] Fw: Williams on Creationism
David Miller wrote: I hate it when theologians are embarrassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. Lance wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM) There is more to this issue that this. Is he embarrassed of certain brands of creationism? Of course. I am too. I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and that whole ICR group over there. At the same time, they serve a purpose in what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator from our public schools. You say it is a NON-ISSUE? I consider such a statement ignorant in the extreme. Deceptive to the core. There is one thing that the ICR group has illustrated, and that is that this is an issue. I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was elected to be President of Student Government at the University of Florida. I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF just because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful. He confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology at Oxford. He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination / interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the classroom. If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would have tolerated his creationist convictions. I wish I could convey to you the grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who would not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design theories should be considered in school. I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis. When the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed in the day of our Lord. The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he depicted the way science really operates. These theologians who object to Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little bit more. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to get you to see it. Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so hard to get you to see it. You just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not the same thing. We repent if we walk contrary to Scripture. We do not necessarily repent if we depart from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others to repent if they depart from Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and the standard of the Bible are two different things. Why can't you see that? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning the Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to be an heresy that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD but, that does not change what it is in this context. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how can you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it is a sin for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times harlot church is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or reality. Jesus was not referring to any Unity in diversity in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is Unity in diversity how you see the Godhead or Trinity? JD On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Alister McGrath? He was received at Oxford as an atheist, and later he converted to Christianity. I guess your point is that John should become an atheist first and then he would get in? You still don't get my point. A Christian these days, according to many of these theologians, must adopt the dogma that the mention of a Creator or models that involve a Creator should not be taught in school. All their rhetoric about the compatibility of faith and science doesn't mean much at all if they affirm this idea that the Creator should be ignored in the study of science. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David: I'll take a pass on the ad-homs in your post as they simply illustrate what I've said concerning you all along. You're an insular, rationalism-based, anthropolically centered, angry, fundamentalist-based, sectarian. Ooops! I didn't 'take a pass' did I? I've but one name to give to you and this so-called grief stricken student. Alister McGrath. Both of you do your homework so that you might see just how wrong you are. (Bonus name: Thomas Weinandy). Go to it guys! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 08:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism David Miller wrote: I hate it when theologians are embarrassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. Lance wrote: You do KNOW, do you not David, that that's NOT the source of his embarrassment? Rowan Williams is not embarrassed concerning our Lord ANYWHERE. He, not unlike many, are embarrassed over believers turning non-issues into 'issues'. (i.e. creationISM) There is more to this issue that this. Is he embarrassed of certain brands of creationism? Of course. I am too. I'm embarrassed of Henry Morris and that whole ICR group over there. At the same time, they serve a purpose in what they do, and we should not revolt to them so much that we accept the atheistic and scientific agenda of removing all references to the Creator from our public schools. You say it is a NON-ISSUE? I consider such a statement ignorant in the extreme. Deceptive to the core. There is one thing that the ICR group has illustrated, and that is that this is an issue. I talked with a student a few months ago, John Boyles, just before he was elected to be President of Student Government at the University of Florida. I talked with him about the persecution my daughter is undergoing at UF just because she believes the Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful. He confided to me that he applied for a Rhodes scholarship to study theology at Oxford. He was turned down because he argued in his oral examination / interview that the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered in the classroom. If this was a non-issue, these professors of theology would have tolerated his creationist convictions. I wish I could convey to you the grief this man carried over his own religious persecution by those who would not have him study theology because he believed intelligent design theories should be considered in school. I truly believe that these modern theologians assume that scientists are well studied in origins and are deeply convicted about the truth of evolutionary processes and the absurdity of the teaching of Genesis. When the truth comes out, they will be the ones who will be greatly embarrassed in the day of our Lord. The philosopher Thomas Khun was right in how he depicted the way science really operates. These theologians who object to Creationist models of origins should pay attention to him just a little bit more. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
I would say what Martin Luther would say... show it to me by Scripture, not by quoting a church father or some dignified scholar in the church. You seem to have no firm standard to judge what is of God and what is not, nor do you seem to have any method whatsoever to discern the truth of Scripture. Your biggest mantra is, nobody knows the truth! From your perspective, we all speculate and sometimes we accidentally overlap with truth and sometimes we don't. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:My interpretation of what you just said: 'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried so hard to get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You do not see them our (God's) way so, you do not see at all! Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm 'thick' but, not that 'thick.SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of you apprehend THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES that which is spoken of as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of Scripture overlap. The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of Scripture!! This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis both Scripture's teaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some occasions, are presumptuous to the nth degree!! - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 08:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to get you to see it. Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so hard to get you to see it. You just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not the same thing. We repent if we walk contrary to Scripture. We do not necessarily repent if we depart from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others to repent if they depart from Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and the standard of the Bible are two different things. Why can't you see that? David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning the Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to be an heresy that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD but, that does not change what it is in this context. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how can you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it is a sin for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times harlot church is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance wrote: Do you truly believe (of course you do) that your logic, the logic of Scripture and God's logic are all the same Of course! Logic is logic, whether it is employed by Scripture, by God, or by me. The logic is all the same. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with 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: Williams on Creationism
Lance wrote: If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then you are a 'sectarian loonie' , David. I'm sectarian only in the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have submitted unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Lance wrote: He is a brother in Christ who believes differently than you on some matters. Now, if that makes him what you say then, that makes you what I say. He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker was offered because of his statement about how acknowledgement of our Creator did not belong in schools. He made an irrational statement, assuming that CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ, then I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he said was very damaging to our society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from scientists but not from theologians, and certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. 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] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
Sadly, Lance, you do not see that you are the one who offers only a harumph. Kevin presented actual evidence for consideration. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad David/Kevin: 'Good point'? As I said recently to David concerning theology/science/logic; should you respond only with 'harumph' in the face of mounting evidence then, you ought to be speaking only with those who hold your views on things. This is a 'cultish' approach and, is inherently dangerous. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 17:56 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad ROTFLOL. Good point, Kevin. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor. ROTFL That is Ludicrous on the face of it. Where did you pick this whopper up? Perhaps you need a Geography lesson! http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 TIMES her size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel expansionist! And how dare anyone believe them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide? I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of David before he meets Goliath! LOL --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd 'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! Sadly, Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad There is little point in talking with someone who knows me better than I know me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind of narrowness that I disregard. jd -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jd, I never said the Jews will be restored Outside of the church; they will be become believers. You say you don't dislike Jews more than any other unbelievers. It is obvious to me that you do. Your stereotypes and slurs are very revealing. Izzy Romans 11 Israel Is Not Cast Away 1I say then, God has not (A)rejected His people, has He? (B)May it never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God (D)has not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew (F)Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3Lord, (G)THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE. 4But what is the divine response to him? (H)I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL. 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time (I)a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6But (J)if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7What then? What (K)Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were (L)hardened; 8just as it is written, (M)GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY. 9And David says, (N)LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. 10(O)LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER. 11(P)I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Q)May it never be! But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles, to (S)make them jealous. 12Now
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Lance wrote: Fundamental Christianity is [fine]... FundamentalISM ought not be believed by anyone. FWIW: I can appreciate this distinction Lance makes. 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] Fw: Williams on Creationism
Lance wrote: One's time would be better spent reading some noteworthy novelists than noteworthy creationists. Lift up Jesus and, creationISM, will fall away as it should. I can't say that I agree with you here. Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Lance wrote: As to mantras David, yours 'I have only the truth and, all of the truth all of the time is neither borne out by Scripture nor reality. This is not my mantra. We have a communication problem here. I do not believe that I have only the truth or all of the truth all of the time. I don't believe that is true about anybody. David Miller Too tired with being misunderstood to continue... -- 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] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant!
Excellent point again, Kevin. Stand by for the "harumph" in spite of all the evidence. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant! After years of bloodshed even sissies might get a little aggitated. Please provide one quote: Where a Jew calls an arab a Rat Dog or vermin Where a leader of the nation of Israel calls for the complete annihilation of an Arab state Where the Jews through a party while dancing on the bodies of dead arabs Where Jews carry the entrails of dead arabs as a emblem of victory above their heads Where a jew drives his car through a crowd to show them what Jehovah thinks of them where Jews torture muslims Show me a picture of a Jew dressed up as a Human bomb! Show me some jewish Educational resources (books videos ) endorsing bombing muslims Show me Jewish TV shows endorsing Bombing muslims The Little sheppard boy is an Oppressor of the GIANT - Ludicrous on it's face! Ya Know that ruddy faced sheppard boy does look a little intimidating! LOL http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010470.php Suicide bombing endorsed in kids book recommended by Canadian libraries http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1120847/posts The body of a police special forces officer who died when Islamic terrorists blew themselves up in Madrid was taken from its grave, mutilated and burnt yesterday. In addition to supporting WMD thru CPP funds, do you also endorse these Suicide Bomb books in CANADIAN Libraries??? Are these Jewish BOYS Then again Who is oppressing who? They oppress their own people! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601244/ Turning a blind eye to child suicide bombers - Where's the outrage over the Palestinians' mistreatment of children? ARE YOU BLIND IN ONE EYE? Slingshot MISHAP? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even at this late date such a response is unworthy of you. Israel, on some occasions (see it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES!- Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad But Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor. ROTFL That is Ludicrous on the face of it. Where did you pick this whopper up? Perhaps you need a Geography lesson! http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 TIMES her size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist!" And how dare anyone believe them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide? I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of David before he meets Goliath! LOL --- Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd 'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! Sadly, Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad There is little point in talking with someone who knows me better than I know me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind of narrowness that I disregard. jd -- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jd, I never said the Jews will be restored Outside of the church; they will be become believers. You say you don't dislik
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism
David Miller wrote: Have you read Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry? Lance wrote: No, I've not but, what would I learn were I to do so, David? I'm glad you asked. There are several things you would learn: 1. You would learn about the evidence for polonium halos indicating that the basement rocks of the earth were created rapidly, in minutes, rather than cooling over a million years. 2. You would see a clear example of how science operates by constructing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, falsifying each one. 3. You would learn about the bigotry in science against publishing articles that suggest a creationist model of origins. 4. You would learn a little about how a court room judge relied upon expert testimony to the exclusion of examining scientific evidence. The book is an easy read, and it breaks down the science into very simple concepts. It is well worth the read by anyone interested in the creation versus evolution controversy. 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] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant!
There were many years of TruthTalk without Lance and JD. No, it was not a lot of backslapping. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant! Hmm curiouser curiouserBehind the 'Looking Glass' would one encounter DM KD? As John, the good bishop said, without the you-know-who's on TT it'd be one grand backslapping 'hail fellow well met' - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 22, 2006 13:10 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant! Excellent point again, Kevin. Stand by for the harumph in spite of all the evidence. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ruddy faced sheppard opresses Giant! After years of bloodshed even sissies might get a little aggitated. Please provide one quote: Where a Jew calls an arab a Rat Dog or vermin Where a leader of the nation of Israel calls for the complete annihilation of an Arab state Where the Jews through a party while dancing on the bodies of dead arabs Where Jews carry the entrails of dead arabs as a emblem of victory above their heads Where a jew drives his car through a crowd to show them what Jehovah thinks of them where Jews torture muslims Show me a picture of a Jew dressed up as a Human bomb! Show me some jewish Educational resources (books videos ) endorsing bombing muslims Show me Jewish TV shows endorsing Bombing muslims The Little sheppard boy is an Oppressor of the GIANT - Ludicrous on it's face! Ya Know that ruddy faced sheppard boy does look a little intimidating! LOL http://jihadwatch.org/archives/010470.php Suicide bombing endorsed in kids book recommended by Canadian libraries http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1120847/posts The body of a police special forces officer who died when Islamic terrorists blew themselves up in Madrid was taken from its grave, mutilated and burnt yesterday. In addition to supporting WMD thru CPP funds, do you also endorse these Suicide Bomb books in CANADIAN Libraries??? Are these Jewish BOYS Then again Who is oppressing who? They oppress their own people! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601244/ Turning a blind eye to child suicide bombers - Where's the outrage over the Palestinians' mistreatment of children? ARE YOU BLIND IN ONE EYE? Slingshot MISHAP? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even at this late date such a response is unworthy of you. Israel, on some occasions (see it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad But Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!) iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:06 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor. ROTFL That is Ludicrous on the face of it. Where did you pick this whopper up? Perhaps you need a Geography lesson! http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 TIMES her size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel expansionist! And how dare anyone believe them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide? I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of David before he meets Goliath! LOL --- Lance Muir wrote: Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd 'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! Sadly, Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad There is little point in talking with someone who knows me better than I know me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind of narrowness
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
The burning bush is not a weak observation concerning the question of whether or not God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire. It would not be proof that he has done it, but it does logically support the idea that he is capable, even though the bush is not burning right now. By the way, when I climbed Mount Sinai, they have a rock there with black magnesium deposits that make it look like a bush was burned into the rocks. The guide there tells everyone that it is the burning bush of Moses. :-) David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 DAVEH: I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched. ShieldsFamily wrote: Yours? DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic. ShieldsFamily wrote: Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning. David Miller wrote: DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- ~~~ 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. -- 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: Williams on Creationism
Yup is right, but how does he get from this thought to the idea that creationism should not be considered in schools? I hate it when theologians are embarassed of giving glory to the Creator in school. David Miller - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 21, 2006 12:15 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism And for most of the history of Christianity ... there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. Yup. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:09 PM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:06 Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism - Original Message - From: Hughes Jonathan To: Lance Muir Sent: March 21, 2006 10:45 Subject: Williams on Creationism http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.williams.ap/index.html Jonathan Hughes Supervisor of Application Support Kingsway Financial 905-629-7888 x. 2471 This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s'y rattachant contiennent de l'information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/2006 -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how can you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it is a sin for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times harlot church is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or reality. Jesus was not referring to any Unity in diversity in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is Unity in diversity how you see the Godhead or Trinity? JD On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked.Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: To your first question , no. If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a gt; figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
The four disagreed on The Faith? How so? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? 1. Faith is used with two considerations in Romans 14 -- the Faith and faith.The FOUR brethren disagreed on The Faith, Judy. Now if you do not think that The Faith includes doctrine, we must agree to disagree. 2. We have the eating of meats AND the observance of holy days presented in this passage. Each is a DOCTRINAL consideration with Paul telling them this: let each be fully convinced in his own mind. DOCTRINE. 3. That you see no diversity here is simply unbelievable. 4. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offenses CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned and AVOID THEM The doctrine referred to in this passage is the teaching concerning unity in diversity !!! They have received a teaching that prevents divisions and moves each away from offending the other. The non-forgiving legalist who insists that it is my way or the highway needs to be marked and excluded, herself !! Within the boundaries of Christian, our home church has only one rule of conduct - tolerance of another brother's views, knowing that he does not serve the church politic but Christ, Himself. People who violate that are asked to leave. 5. What the Jews practiced or did not practice following the resurrection is no standard for doctrine, nor is it a picture of manifest diversity JD Again, your own theology has blinded you to what is being said. Acts 15 is not about what the Jews practiced .. following the resurrection. Rather, it is has to do with the Jewish Church faction and the Gentile Churchfaction. To prevent division within the church of Christ, the two groups were given a course of conduct and told [by implication] to stop judging each other. Unity was more important than the notion that they all speak and believe the same things.If you cannot see this obvious ruth -- well, I really so not know what to tell you. jd -- 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: Williams on Creationism
John wrote: The world in which we live would reject any mention of God in the evolutionary process, IMO. But creationism in the schools? Could that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on purpose. John wrote: But to allow a mere statement that suggests God is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this could be presented into the secular system of education without it being coopted by the fundies -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. What a shame that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity to introduce the Creator to others. In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this. David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism the RESTORATION
This is interesting, Kevin. The LDS believes in henotheism (a type of polytheism) and modalism at the same time? How can this be? DaveH, please let us know your thoughts about this. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism the RESTORATION [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, Modalism !! Sort of Like the RESTORATIONISTS of the pre Church of Christ - CHRIST-ian church? Sounds more like your HERITAGE! The guys who thaought, the only name for the TRUE church is to have the name of CHRIST thus the Christian Church! http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jburnett/eshm/ESHM.HTM http://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_009/rq00903olbricht.htm http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1960s/vol_9_no_3_contents/olbricht.html Some of these fellas Like David Millard, lived a scant 13 miles from Joe Smith and thus the MODALISM in the BoM! Book of Mormon theology is generally modalistic. In the Book of Mormon, God and Jesus Christ are not distinct beings. (New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, 1993, pages 82, 96-99, 103-104, 110) Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my sons and my daughters. (Ether 3:14) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/gods_1.htm --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times harlot church is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or reality. Jesus was not referring to any Unity in diversity in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is Unity in diversity how you see the Godhead or Trinity? JD On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked.Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: To your first question , no. If I
Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad
ROTFLOL. Good point, Kevin. David Miller - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor. ROTFL That is Ludicrous on the face of it. Where did you pick this whopper up? Perhaps you need a Geography lesson! http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 TIMES her size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel expansionist! And how dare anyone believe them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide? I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of David before he meets Goliath! LOL --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd 'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! Sadly, Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad There is little point in talking with someone who knows me better than I know me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind of narrowness that I disregard. jd -- Original message -- From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jd, I never said the Jews will be restored Outside of the church; they will be become believers. You say you don't dislike Jews more than any other unbelievers. It is obvious to me that you do. Your stereotypes and slurs are very revealing. Izzy Romans 11 Israel Is Not Cast Away 1I say then, God has not (A)rejected His people, has He? (B)May it never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God (D)has not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew (F)Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3Lord, (G)THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE. 4But what is the divine response to him? (H)I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL. 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time (I)a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6But (J)if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7What then? What (K)Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were (L)hardened; 8just as it is written, (M)GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY. 9And David says, (N)LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. 10(O)LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER. 11(P)I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Q)May it never be! But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles, to (S)make them jealous. 12Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (T)fulfillment be! 13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as (U)I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14if somehow I might (V)move to jealousy (W)my fellow countrymen and (X)save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the (Y)reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but (Z)life from the dead? 16If the (AA)first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. 17But if some of the (AB)branches were broken off, and (AC)you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that (AD)it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Yes. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Do you still consider yourself a Trinitarian leaning towards Modalism? --- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how can you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it is a sin for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, Modalism !! Modalism The error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- HURRY !! jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE More accurately, one person in three manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in Eloquence. iz If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the end times harlot church is all about. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist. jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or reality. Jesus was not referring to any Unity in diversity in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is Unity in diversity how you see the Godhead or Trinity? JD On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal. jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked.Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: To your first question , no. If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a gt; figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but ; the uses of the word day
[TruthTalk] The week winds down...
As the week winds down, I will not be enforcing any rules on TruthTalk. If any of you have felt muzzled by the no ad hominem rule, now is your time to vent. However, I would ask that you consider that you will be leaving your last impression upon us, so it might be prudent for you to be nice. The reason I am doing this is that some might feel like saying something but are concerned about being reprimanded. Won't happen after this post. I planto take the list down after this week. So take the next few days to wrap up your discussions on subjects. I will give you one more notice about two days before I take down the list (probably around Thursday or Friday)so that you can say your final good byes. David Miller
Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic
I haven't much time today, but I really must applaud you here, John. You are right on with the not having all the facts part. That is exactly how I was planning to address Debbie's comment. I'm thrilled somebody actually has some insight into the way I think on this issue. Thank you, John. It is nice to be heard by you. Debbie wrote: if everything conforms to reason, then everything is ultimately discoverable by reason. The unspoken assumption in Debbie's comment here is that all facts are known. If we had all the facts, then yes, it naturally follows that everything would be discoverable by reason. The problem is that we don't have all the facts, so our research progresses along like jumping from one stone to another across a brook. The stones, however, are not uniformly distributed. Some are closer while others are farther away. And some are missing altogether. This is the way in which revelation helps out. It transports us to conclusions which are unobtainable by reason alone. Looking back and seeing where the missing stones would have been, we find that logic still works even though it did not carry us to where we are at directly. Your very last statement is the only thing where I have some disagreement. I just don't think your word illogical is appropriate. What we might say is that when we don't have all the facts, then knowing God by logic alone is not possible. David Miller p.s. I was very disappointed to see Debbie and Lance mingle the word gnosticism with words like dualism, reductionism, and rationalism. This is very telling to me about the bias and prejudice in theological circles these days. I truly did not think it was that bad. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic I think David might say, It IS logical, all of it -- we just don't know all the facts as of yet. I would think all our discussion about logic as applied to the knowing of God suffers from this present time limitation, making necessary the self-revealing that TFT speaks of. Am I off course here? The fact that we don't have all the facts, makes the fact of knowing God by logic an illogical fact -- AT THIS TIME. True? jd -- Original message -- From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 20, 2006 08:35 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic The TFT quote is apropos. I am appreciating the way Victor uses the word 'logic' to mean something similar to what 'logos' means as used by TFT below; it is always the logic of something, that is, peculiar to something. It strikes me that the unqualified use of the word, i.e., as a sort of absolute standard to which all truth must conform, is the same thing as rationalism. What David calls the 'esoteric' sense of rationalism is just the normal sense. Interestingly, if he applies his own kind of logic, the distinction between reason as the source of truth and reason as the standard (or criterion) of truth is spurious, for if everything conforms to reason, then everything is ultimately discoverable by reason. D From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:17 AM To: Debbie Sawczak Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic.I may ahve misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my perspective. Below you say this: If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. -- DM Torrance might give caution with these words: .. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
I don't know what you mean,Gary. Judy is just speaking the basics of a spiritual man. I like what Judy said. I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about the relationship between Jesus and truth. Could you comment after each of the falling statements with the word "agree" or "disagree" please? 1. Jesus said, "I am Truth." 2. Jesus is Truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Judy, I'm scratching my head on this one. I think maybe you might understand the response better than me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg like this to a public list Can you help me with it DavidM? It is not conversation that's for sure It is not communication either Is this written to helpencourage or instruct? What is the point in taking one line out of it's setting to make it imply something the author may never have intended? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting eh, DavidM? On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ||Judy Taylor wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800.. I don't make up things that paint God into any corner..I go to a higher authority
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Your suggestion is a possibility if my speaking was a matter of trying to imitate the early Christians. However, I speak from my heart, from a source of love that dwells in my heart. Therefore, if my speech happens to coincide with the early believers, I know that I am walking in the same spirit as they did. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM You, David, may be DOING what the early church DID without MEANING what the early church MEANT. On this one DH may be closer to the truth than DM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM David Miller wrote: Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? DAVEH wrote: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to be more positive in my approach. I guess the LDS organization has not restored the church then, eh? You are not doing what the early church did. :-) 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] Hell BoM
Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 5:2-3 (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Revelation 12:17 (17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 14:12 (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. You might plead lack of intelligence or that the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist or any number of things, but it is quite simple and true that if you do not keep the commandments, you are not in Christ. Here is the reason that you and I cannot understand one another concerning the characteristics of a believer in his apprehension of knowledge and truth. Please read the above passages seriously and don't just skip over them. Those who believe in Jesus keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grevious. If you do not keep his commandments and you think everyone transgresses his commandments, not only are you wrong, but your eternal fate is in the balance. The judgment of hell fire is at your door despite your perspective of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. 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
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
No, Lance. You are misapplying things you have read. Based on my reading of Torrance, I'm with him on this one. I believe God operates with logic, not against it, yet logic alone cannot lead us into all truth. I don't expect you to be able to understand at this point, but you should know that you are not hearing me in this last post. I make some subtle distinctions that would help you understand me better if you would take the time to hear them. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? We've been here before have we not? IFF you believe that the laws of logic to which you subscribe are those out of which God operates then, David. you deceived. What you are practicing is anthropological theology as against theological anthropology. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Lance wrote: David:Or, the Holy Spirit is not a rationalist. If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. The position that Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit not being rational is just a cop out, in my opinion. It is just as bad as the Creationist who uses the cop out explanation for an observation, God did it to stop further research and investigation. The truth is not afraid of logical thinking, nor does it contradict logic at any time. 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] Hell BoM
Lance, I don't know what you are talking about. We do have a failure to communicate here. 1. Heb. 11 isn't meant to be case closed, just helpful. 2. I don't know who Hobart Freeman is, or his legacy. 3. I am familiar a little with E.W. Kenyon. No, I am not one of his offspring. 4. Exposing myself to believing scientists? I'm not sure what you mean by exposing myself. I have engaged many believing scientists about this. What I'm really more interested in are theologians. The few I have engaged can't handle the science side, and generally they plead ignorance in our discussion, falling back on I'm a theologian... sorry... Would I expose myself to scientists and theologians? Of course. Your question seems nonsensical. 5. Real logicians? Of course I would welcome that. I could be wrong, but as best I can tell, in theological circles, there appear to be biases expressed against concepts like rationalism and dualism and reductionism etc. You seem to try and operate in line with those biases without really understanding the reasoning behind the criticisms leveled against the ideas expressed by these words. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. What we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote you privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy and, take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them? I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, would you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e. philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with a few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism? At least my daughter is healed, Lance. You should be rejoicing with me, not fearing dangerous sect or cult. The difference between us on this matter has to do with an understanding of faith. Please read Heb. 11, and also consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is not the same as insisting others do the same. Lastly, you should consider discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather than making erroneous judgments about me. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the Bible. Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be fearful, David, I'd say 'look in the mirror. At least our concern seems mutual. :) - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM Lance wrote: David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'. Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely. I'm anti-sectarian, remember? I do not believe that denominations are of God. It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty recently. That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing the commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal fate. If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then that means that you transgress the commandments of God. Such indicates that you are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Have you not read the following passages? Matthew 19:17 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14:15 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 15:10 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 1 John 2:3-4 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:22 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1 John 3:24
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, I'm happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people who came together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about it. At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot simply rejoice with me when God is so good. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM What truth do you refer toLance? Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group because he encourages his daughter to believe God to speed healing of herwrist and relieve the pain? or Because there are many religious sects on this TT list? On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy. From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group. Can you justify this announcement Lance by giving us a list of the various sects that comprise this group? Mormon is obvious, what are the others.
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc
Judy quotes a mentor of Lance: Out of sheer respect for the majesty of the Truth as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, we have to do our utmost to speak correctly and exactly about it -that is the meaning of orthodoxy and the way of humility-but when we have done all this, we have still to confess that we are unfaithful servants, that all our efforts fall far short of the truth. Judy wrote: I see a very definite conflict between the teaching of God's Word and your favorite mentors Barth and TFT Judy, which mentor are you quoting above? There is a definite conflict between God's Word and what you quote above. Is there anybody on this list who does not see this conflict? If so, I will elaborate as time permits. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Gary, you have accused someone of being a liar for saying Truth is Jesus Christ. Now you say here that it is POSSIBLE that you think it is true about JC being Truth? First, let me lay out some new ground rules that are actually old ground rules. We don't allow ad hominem style arguments such has you posted in calling Judy a liar, so whether or not it is true and whether or not you believe it, please do not repeat such posts to TruthTalk. Second, we really need to carry this dialogue further than possibilities about what you believe. I know that you accept Scripture as being true, so, I would like you to state whether you agree or disagree with the following statements if you are willing. 1. Jesus said, I am truth. 2. Jesus is truth. 3. Truth is Jesus. Along the same lines, we have discussed on this list long ago the following concepts and so I would like to hear whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. 1. God is love. 2. Love is God. Thank you. After I see what your position is, I will have some other questions. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth? it's quite possible that both Pilate I think that's true about JC On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:18:36 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Lance, part of our difficulty in communicating on this is our definition of believer. I think you have discerned in the past that I use the term Christian in a broad sense of those who claim Christianity as their religion. We would be in agreement in regards to Christians having widely different interpretations about Gen. 1-11. On the other hand, the term believer for me takes on a more narrow meaning in the sense of someone who actually trusts in Jesus Christ. The term believer for me actually includes non-Christians, but among the Christians included, it is such a small group who are actually believers that the word is much more narrow than the term Christian. I think that believers actually do see Gen 1-11 in a very similar way in regards to knowledge they have confidence about, that is, in regards to the actual message of God being conveyed in the text. Some believers have more knowledge than others in regards to the subject matter in Genesis, so what they actually say will vary, but there are not sharp disagreements among believers in these matters. For example, if I were to share my knowledge of Creation, or the Nephilim, or the Noachide flood, etc., while my knowledge might be greater than many believers in many of these areas, I expect a lot of hearty amens as opposed to suspicion and disagreement. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that day in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the day they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that day is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 day is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the day it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events. If day is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say Let there be light. That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical expression is unlikely and for all the reasons stated. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the idea that the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created roughly 1 years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also, you are completely right: David: I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility, God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe that the universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very long time. Quoting David Miller : Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third option, which
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Judy, comments like this one are better made off the list. They really are kind of insulting and do not add to the discussion at hand. I realize that Lance provoked you here, but somebody has to cut it off and I think you are mature enough to ignore comments like this one or discuss it off the list. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator p.s. Do not reply to this post on the list, please. Off list e-mail on this topic is welcome. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Lance why don't you get your own list together and organize it from your perch up there in the frozen North. David, Perry, Dean et al are doing their best under trying conditions. Do you really think they need an "expert opinion" hovering over their shoulders constantly? A little sensitiity please . On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:48:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds. Bishop J -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I say that I'm not a strict creationist,
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
No, Lance, I do not think Judy is being accusatory. She is expressing a valid objection, that from her perspective, the way she is hearing John, she wonders if he calls God a liar. John should answer the objection. By the way, please write me privately about moderation issues, and if necessary, I can post clarification to the list in a single post. I don't want an extended thread on this subject. David Miller p.s. Judy could learn to express herself differently, in a more respectful way, and I have made efforts to talk with her about it off the list. Part of the problem is that Judy believes in being honest and transparent, so working too hard about expressing herself differently from how she actually feels tends toward guile, hypocrisy, and manipulation. These are valid concerns on her part, so we need to try and have some grace here and work with her as best we can. I can certainly understand how a sensitive person would take such questions as veiled accusations, but I think we all know Judy well enough by now to give her the benefit of the doubt here and work around her method of writing. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 David:Please be even-handed with your reprimands. Would you not concur that Judy's question below is rhetorical in nature? Is she not actually saying 'John, you are calling God a liar'? IMO such micromanaging of the list says more about you than either of them. Remember the good old days when Gary and Slade moderated? From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 08:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:48:37 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. 1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" 2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day"ismore than a24 hour period of time. Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; AE were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images. 3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created.. not a 24 hour period. Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4a 4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses? The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of thesun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day.Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time andextended into other creation events. So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism? If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely andfor all the reasons stated. This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under
Re: [TruthTalk] torrance
John wrote: And you did not answer Lance's question about TFT. In your words, specifically, what is Torrance's position as relates to Calvinism? I seriously do not think you know. Prove me wrong -- that will be fine with me. You are asking the wrong person, John. Lance is the TruthTalk expert on Torrance. Judy's position is based upon a creed, which Lance apparently indicates Torrance does not fully embrace. If you want more information to substantiate this, press Lance to present it for us. As for me, I willing to accept Lance's opinion based upon the assumption that he is more informed about Torrance than Judy is. 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] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a theologian. His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
John wrote: To your first question , no. If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? David Miller John, I have a couple questions for you. 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he is accepted as a theologian. His arguments for why the day is not figurative made a lot of sense to me. 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
Hi Lance. I don't mean to be rude, but all the below is the same boring stuff I have heard for many years. Many scientists repeat this mantra too. I just don't buy it. The Bible is more than poetry and literature that answers questions outside of science. There are real, empirical observations in the Bible, history of a people, real names of real people and real places, with dates and times that are real and refer to our physical world. The way I see it, the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ encompass all knowledge and all wisdom. It is all inclusive of science. Science, on the other hand, defines its realm of inquiry as one that excludes God and excludes any consideration that cannot be observed empirically and demonstrated to others. When it comes to the question of origins, science dismisses the idea of a Creator a priori. What people like Waltke try to do is define Biblical study as exclusionary of science. I strongly disagree. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? Think of the early chapters of Genesis as theological literature with the emphasis on 'literature'. It is a well drawn story. Bruce Waltke, in a recent commentary on Genesis, says the prologue announces that the God of the covenant community is the same as the Creator of the cosmos. Waltke asks 'Is Genesis myth? He answers: 'If by the word myth one means a story that explains phenomena and, experience, an ideaology that explains the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth.In this sense, myth addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific discovery.' Genesis and science discuss essentially different matters. Genesis 1 is concerned with ultimate cause (see my reference to teleology), not proximation. The purpose of Genesis and science differ. Genesis is prescriptive, answering the questions of who and why and what ought to be, whereas the purpose of science is descriptive, answering the questions of what and how. Genesis is about who has created the world and for what purpose. Genesis and science address different communities. They require a distinct means for validation. One requires empirical testing for validating, while the other, being addressed to the covenant community of God, requires the validation of the witness of the Spirit to the heart (Rom. 8:16) For these reasons; the Genesis creation account cannot be delineated as a scientific text. See 'Genesis, a commentary' Bruce K. Waltke, Eerdmans, 2001. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 13:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? John wrote: To your first question , no. If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. John wrote: To your second question, either you did not read my post or you have decided to insult my presentation? I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good theology, in my opinion. The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis 1. Do
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Dave, for what it is worth, your view of hell is also shared by many Protestants. In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone preacher by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes about hell pretty much just like you do. Still, Jed will stand on campus and warn students loudly about bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of FI-I-I-R-R-E! I was surprised the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached was figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell? In other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to convey to people the danger of transgressing the commandments of God? David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no literal Hell. DAVEH: Quite the contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical separation from God and his love. The effect of such separation is similar to how it would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of Jerusalem, except its effect would last forever. Are you saying then that it is not a place? DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven is located in a place, then heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located. So yes, hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does his love emanate. It is not physical? DAVEH: Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of fire and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel who end up there. I do not believe people will literally be cast into a burning lake of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, IMHO. If this literal Hell you speak of is not a place, DAVEH: Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem irrelevant. Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where you think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located? Kevin Deegan wrote: I am sorry I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no literal Hell. Are you saying then that it is not a place? It is not physical? When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical, perhaps, therein lies the confusion. If this literal Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that suffer this mental anguish be? Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer? Can there be both joy sorrow in the same place? Will they be in a physical place? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you have been decieved by the Devil DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite the contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer! I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position on this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal hell.literally being separated from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will literally be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe. Lacking the eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision to choose evil over good. Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my attention, I had never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic. The only time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages that were posted. Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall. Back then, I had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter mine that those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when they used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one who does not go to heaven will feel. Posting the below passages from other sources reaffirms the same conclusion. Kevin Deegan wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: You've surprised me, Kevin! I thought you'd want to defend your position using material favorable to your perspective...namely, the Bible. But that is OK, as the LDS sources you've quoted plainly sh ow the symbolism of the terms used to describe hell. Why you would quote some of them somewhat surprises me, as they succinctly show that distinction. I'll take each passage you quoted and analyze it from the premise I've put forth. whosesmoke ascendeth up forever and ever DAVEH: A physical impossibility, and clearly symbolic of a time frame rather than a physical smoke. which lake of fire and bri mstone is endless torment DAVEH: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can
Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
JD wrote: And virtually all of my argumentation was of a contextual in nature. There was no appeal to cultural or outside sources. How is it that you missed this? There was no direct contextual evidence in your presentation that the meaning should be taken figuratively. Let me put it another way. If the Holy Spirit was trying to communicate to us a sequence of events that took millions of years, then it seems to me that he is not a very good communicator. The use of First Day, Second Day, etc. and Evening and Morning are time references that are not normally indicative of millions of years. Was he trying to be mysterious or ambiguous in your opinion? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
:-) Slow down, Izzy, and read Lance's post again. He was saying that HE was the one with the cranial density problem. I think you understood my post because we have similar assumptions. Lance has a different set of assumptions. I was a little surprised that Lance could not understand my post, but I believe he is sincere when he says he does not understand it. The work is to try and figure out what assumptions he holds to that causes my post not to resonate with him. That is difficult for me to do at this point, given the lack of his response here. Lance is basically just saying he doesn't understand my post without doing the work of identifying what part of my post is the part that starts to lose him. I will keep looking out in future posts of his what it might be that causes he and I to approach our understanding of this subject in different ways, but until then, we can be respectful, patient, longsuffering, and work hard at communicating. :-) God bless you, sister. It greatly uplifted my spirit to hear that you found me quite lucid. Sometimes I feel like I'm in my own world where nobody understands me, but the Scriptures do teach that the spiritual man discerns all things yet he himself is discerned of no one. David Miller - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:17 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, in all kindness may I submit to you the possibility that YOU might be the one with the cranial density problem? I found DM's statement to be quite lucid. izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:38 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, upon reading David's post below, exhibits 'cranial density' his own self. Though I'd thought we would be further ahead, we're not. Why not submit this to David Miller for a rewrite? He's good at that sort of thing :). - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 11:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8
[TruthTalk] Creationism
Lance wrote: There are evolutionists who are Christians. There are various kinds of creationists who are Christians. The majority of Christians simply adopt a don't know/don't care position. I would say that EVERY believer in Jesus Christ must be a creationist. Would you disagree with this statement? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
Kevin wrote: Then according to your own book you have been decieved by the Devil into thinking there is No literal Hell Hi Kevin. Why exactly are you convinced that there is a literal hell? Can you present an argument for a literal hell for us? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11 Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se. Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called science Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics? Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ... KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas mental torment can go on forever. So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he had promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrs feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet from swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on water The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot and had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explain Him? On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you. Lance -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Title: The radical consequences of justification, by T.F. Torrance Please do not forward entire web pages to the list. If you desire to shareinformation from web pages, especially those thatcontain graphics, menus, _javascript_, etc., please send a link to the web page rather than copying the entire page. There are numerous technical reasons for this policy that I can explain in private for those interested. There arealsolegal copyright reasons and web etiquette reasons why sharing links rather than copying web pages is the preferred method of sharing published web pages. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. David Miller TruthTalk Moderator
Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
Conor wrote: Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken literally. I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] Is Jesus Christ Truth?
Gary, are you disagreeing with Judy's statement that 'truth is Jesus Christ'? There is a wide latitude of meaning in this statement, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about. Jesus said, I am the ... Truth. Does it not also follow that the truth is Jesus Christ? Jesus also said, every one that is of the truth heareth my voice (John 18:37). Consider also: 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 (30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. One last consideration. Jesus Christ is the logos. Is it not also true that the logos is Jesus Christ? Help me out here Gary. Where's your beef? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
[TruthTalk] The Future of TruthTalk
Dear TruthTalk members, As many of you know, I have not had time to moderate TruthTalk for a number of years. We have had some problems recently on the listthat has beenespecially trying for many of us, especiallythe past moderator. Another TruthTalk member has volunteered to moderate the list, but given recent events, I am very reticent to consider this option. Right now, I have to confess to the list that I am seriously considering taking down the list. I don't regret having had this list for these last 8 years, but priorities in our lives change and I feel that my priority is toward other situations in my life which concern my family, my church, my business, etc. I also have a desire to start writing position papers on various issues, and TruthTalk basically takes away my time from doingsuch things. I suppose in some ways I feel that I have outgrown TruthTalk, and in other ways I just need a break for awhile. This would be a lot easier decision to make if TruthTalk was somehow dying on the vine with few posts being made. The truth is just the opposite of that situation.Interest continuesconcerningengagingin dialogue here. I will be continuing to moderate TruthTalk for the next week or so as if TruthTalk weregoing to continue, but I am still very seriously considering bringing an end to TruthTalk. If any of you have any wisdom or suggestions about TruthTalk continuing, perhaps without my leadership or involvement, please share it with me. I'm open to alternatives, but I do think my time with TruthTalk, even in an administration capacity or lurking capacity, is being brought to an end here this week. Most of all, I want everyone to know what is stirring in my heart so you are not surprised or shocked if I do take down this list at the end of the week or if there is some other drastic change that happens with the list. God bless you all, David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
Very good point, Judy. Paul is all about us knowing the truth, but he
also cautions us not to think we know the whole story. I think many times
when people encounter those who have a confidence in a particular truth, they
feel some kind of threat and want to knock down the confidence of that
person. Have you ever noticed that?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:02
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth
Knowable?
The thing Paul is against is being a know it all
and proud along with causing younger believers to stumble; however neither God
or his servants condone ignorance ... they teach that we should not be
children in understanding; in malice be children but in understanding be men. (1 Cor 14:20)
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:57:08 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest that Lance's De Lima as framed by DM is the very reason we
seek the counsel of others in discussion groups such as this.
Further, itmay the reason Paul cautions concerning "knowing" (I
Cor 8:1ff.) jd
I hear something else from Judy (and Izzy
too), and that is that Lance seems to have no basis by which we can know
whether or not our interpretation of the truth is accurate. This
creates a problem in discussing truth, because then we all just have
opinions and nobody knows the truth. Lance, do you understand this
dilemma? (By the way, I'm with Izzy Judy in this concern, so
please try to address it if you can.) DM
From:
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm going to try and weigh in a bit
here.
I hear from Lance that sometimes truth
and one's interpretation of truth does not coincide.
I hear from Judy that sometimes one's
interpretation of truth does coincide.
I agree with these two statements.
Do both of you? I think you both do, but if not, please speak
up.
I hear something else from Judy (and
Izzy too), and that is that Lance seems to have no basis by which we can
know whether or not our interpretation of the truth is accurate.
This creates a problem in discussing truth, because then we all just have
opinions and nobody knows the truth. Lance, do you understand this
dilemma? (By the way, I'm with Izzy Judy in this concern, so
please try to address it if you can.)
What standards of truth do we have,
Lance? How can we know the truth? How can we know that we do
know the truth?
1. The Bible?
2. The Spirit?
3. Logic?
4. Emotions?
What role do each of these play in
knowing truth?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The dearly
departed
So what you are saying Lance is that there
is no "objective truth?" That in fact if I say dog, you could
be hearing cat? which means
there is no such thing as a dog because this is just my
interpretation? And if I
write exactly what is written in scripture - because IYO truth changes
generationally and according to culture then it really isn't truth
because they could be saying dog and I might be hearing cat. Is
this what you are saying Lance?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:47:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I've no problem acknowledging the 'fixity
and eternality' of truth. I do, however, have a problem with some
persons interpretations. I'd say to you that which I said to Kevin:
Once you (Judy) are convinced that your statements concerning the
truth (Scriptural quotations on any subject) are themselves the truth
then, even the possibility of conversation is over.
From: Judy
Taylor
I am saying that I don't understand
your question Lance - so it looks likeyou have excused
yourself again.
Why are you so full of conditions - is
it really that difficult to say what you mean?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:31:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
When you answer my question then,
I'll 'give it a shot' as it were.
From: Judy Taylor
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:02:02 -0500 &quo
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Comfort the FORNICATORS!
John, in my opinion based upon sketchy details, Joanna violated the teaching of Paul. Paul dealt with fornicators by instructing believers not to even eat with them. Paul rebuked the carnal Corinthians for doing the same thing Joanna was doing. Don't you see that? It is a difficult position to take, but that is the Scripture of 1 Cor. 3:1ff, 1 Cor. 5, etc. Now, we don't hear all the facts about her situation, so there are other possibilities here. Perhaps Joanna did not know this person very well and had not had time to instruct the person in righteousness. If this person responds to her admonition that such is wrong, then I don't have a problem with her eating with the person. However, if this person is a believer who knows better and justifies his fornication with the notion that everybody sins, then we have a problem along the lines of 1 Cor. Do you see it differently? David Miller p.s. I have eaten with ignorant Christian fornicators many times and will continue to do so, but it is because of their ignorance. There are others that know better with whom I have had to carry the cross and cut them off, even a family member ala Luke 14:26. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Comfort the FORNICATORS! Perhaps my twentieth request. It is not what I think you beleive but what you actually believe that is the question. If I tell you what I think you believe, you will just make fun of me and hurt my feelings and stuff . Does Kevin beleive in the kind of mission activity demonstrated by Joanna and deemed necessary by Paul as he ministered to a carnal but saved bunch of disciples? -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELEVENTH REQUEST Please post a short summary of the position you want me to hold. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like a bear with his foot in a trap !! It is so easy to set the record straight. You are all over people or activiity such as the one shared by Lance and his friend, Joanna Williams, and yet, you now seem to want others to believe that I have misrepresented you. Not my intention at all. What would you do differently than Paul and why? Or, would you rather moan for a while? Get back to me on that , will you? Have I not quoted enough of your position on this? Give the word -- there is more. dj -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see you as standing outside the door of the church rebuking Wake UP! It's just a NIGHMARE! Or a personal problem... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your theology is herein included, Kevin. Now -- Back to I Cor 3:1ff. It appears (based on what is written) that we have a church full of carnal and immature people. It is my beleif that if this were a circumstance in which Joanna Williams could help -- she just might be doing her best to mentor these folk toward freedom in Christ and maturity in the Spirit. And that is exactly what Paul is trying to do with the writing of this Corinthian letter. I see you as standing outside the door of the church, rebuking them to the hell they so richly deserve (don't we all) and doing precious little to actually help these brethren.. They are alive in Christ, yet carnal -- a circumstance that could work harm in their lives. This is a church with problems (more than likely a Missionary Baptist church.) Again, these disciples are alive in Christ, Christians if you will, but carnal yet in their walk with God. Actually, Paul deals with this weak fellowship of saints for several years, does he not -- perhaps three letters or more and a visit or two.He never recommended they be cut off from the larger church. So how does Kevin deal with this Apostolic example? Mock those who think to do what Paul was doing -- or ? I am curious. Can you answer this? telll us how the reality that is pictured in I Cor 3:1ff works in your thegology? jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] No surprise here from the community of salve your own conscience crowd. God's ways? It my way or the highway! SIN #1 The sin is in doing it our way in direct disobedience to God's commands. SIN #2 What help was offered has the Fornicator Repented? The attempt was about as useful as the same attempt to help in a Emergency room. More damage than help. This guy is headed for trouble where was the help? Comfort for Fornicators? That is a great help! whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To imagine that there are those who think it a sin as one attempts to help those who cry for help demonstrates just how confused we can get in our individual theologies. -- Original message -- From
[TruthTalk] The relationship of sin and believers.
Lance wrote: No believer commends known sin! Perhaps not, but many so-called believers, Christians if you will, accept sin as part of life until death, and many will condone sin. Technically, they are not believers, because somone who truly sees Jesus as he is and believes in him, trusts in him, becomes like him instantly. Lance wrote: No believer is without sin! You could mean several different things by this statement. I hope you are not denying the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. I hope you are not saying that no believer is morally clean. No believer is without sin in the same way that Jesus was not without sin (reference the post you forwarded by Debbie not long ago), but there are believers who will be without sin in the same way that Jesus was without sin, because we are made like him through faith. As the Scriptures say, he that is born of God sinneth not (1 John 5:18). Who is he that is born of God? Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 John 5:1). Notice it does not say, whosoever believeth the doctrine of the Trinity is born of God. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the
believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she
means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at
this point in time.
You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about
ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they
believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion
over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and
cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think?
David Miller.
- Original Message -
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
'ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT BY GOD WILL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT GENESIS CHAPTERS
1 - 11'
Have we just been provided with a perfect standard for determining who
is/who is not 'taught by God'?
- Original Message -
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 16, 2006 07:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
I disagree with Lance.
I say that all who are taught by God will say the same thing about Genesis
Chapters 1 through 11
These are the ones who will all be saying the same thing in the end time and
this is the unity Christ
prayed for... The definition of believer should be one who speaks as the
oracles of God
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:38:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Take Genesis chapters 1 - 3 or, if you prefer 1 - 11. Is TRUTH taught
therein? Yes! Do all believers agree upon the TRUTH that is taught therein?
No!.WHY? Further, upon employing 1 - 4 below will the
outcome necessarily be other than 'NO'?
From: David Miller
I'm going to try and weigh in a bit here.
I hear from Lance that sometimes truth and one's interpretation of truth
does not coincide.
I hear from Judy that sometimes one's interpretation of truth does coincide.
I agree with these two statements. Do both of you? I think you both do,
but if not, please speak up.
I hear something else from Judy (and Izzy too), and that is that Lance seems
to have no basis by which we can know whether or not our interpretation of
the truth is accurate. This creates a problem in discussing truth, because
then we all just have opinions and nobody knows the truth. Lance, do you
understand this dilemma? (By the way, I'm with Izzy Judy in this concern,
so please try to address it if you can.)
What standards of truth do we have, Lance? How can we know the truth? How
can we know that we do know the truth?
1. The Bible?
2. The Spirit?
3. Logic?
4. Emotions?
What role do each of these play in knowing truth?
David Miller
- Original Message -
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The dearly departed
So what you are saying Lance is that there is no objective truth? That in
fact if I say dog, you could be hearing cat? which means there is no such
thing as a dog because this is just my interpretation? And if I write
exactly what is written in scripture - because IYO truth changes
generationally and according to culture then it really isn't truth because
they could be saying dog and I might be hearing cat. Is this what you are
saying Lance?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:47:08 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I've no problem acknowledging the 'fixity and eternality' of truth. I do,
however, have a problem with some persons interpretations. I'd say to you
that which I said to Kevin: Once you (Judy) are convinced that your
statements concerning the truth (Scriptural quotations on any subject) are
themselves the truth then, even the possibility of conversation is over.
From: Judy Taylor
I am saying that I don't understand your question Lance - so it looks like
you have excused yourself again.
Why are you so full of conditions - is it really that difficult to say what
you mean?
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:31:49 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
When you answer my question then, I'll 'give it a shot' as it were.
From: Judy Taylor
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:02:02 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Would you be so kind Judy, as to restate 'apprehend and apply' so as to
demonstrate to me that therein lies the meaning 'truth is NOT fixed and
eternal..'?
I say that truth IS fixed and eternal so would you please explain what you
mean by the above ...
Further Judy, should we actually be attempting to exhibit a 'new and
improved' TT, was the last 'shot' necessary? ('dancing around a calf').
I think so Lance, and BTW it is not a shot We all come into this world
with hearts full of idolatry, I examine my own daily. Remember, we are all
by nature children of wrath. That is unless we walk after the new nature
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator Comment **
Kevin, your response here is nothing but an ad hominem remark. It is an emotional comment, not a logical one. It does not add to the discussion. If you need help understanding an ad hominem argument, please consult the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Please try and refrain from such sort of comments in the future as they only provoke emotional responses. Try to read the argument being made and if you choose to respond, couch a logical argument for your point. The question to you Kevin is this: as a fundamentalist, what do you do with Christians who are heading to hell because of their sin? Is there any room in your theology for the Christian who sins seven times seventy, the same sin, over and over again. How does your theology address the person who professes Christ but is not experiencing the kingdom of God? Does your theology say to kick them out, welcome them into the church as a spiritual hospital, don't even eat with them, rebuke them in the harshest terms and don't talk to them until you are convinced they no longer sin, or ... what? What is your theology in relation to the carnal and unspiritual who professes to follow Christ but falls short? David Miller TruthTalk Moderator - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Comfort the FORNICATORS! Apparently you can not control yourself : ( --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will not ask this question again. Apparently the rightwing cannot receive the question for some reason (fear expressed in self - assertion ??) but the question is this: assuming they are going to hell in due time (a discussion point for another time), what do we do with these folks IN THE MEAN TIME? Do we continue to patiently deal with the them, receive them as brethren, teach, pray and work with them as did Paul with the carnal Christians in Corinth (HH's opinion aside) or take some of his words of exclusion and impose them onto all and refuse to help any who cry for help? ...and why. I have concluded that radical fundalmentalism cannot answer this question without sacrifice to aspects of its theology and , so , some refuse to answer the question. jd -- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:35:58 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How do we deal with the subject of carnal Christians? Is there such a thing? Holy Hubert use to preach that there was no such thing as a carnal Christian. Does anyone on the list believe like that? Kevin, you in particular are being asked by JD to tell him how you perceive 1 Cor. 3:1 and the subject of carnal Christians. Do we talk down to them, shoot them, tell them to get out of the church, have lunch with them, ridicule them, what? Praise the Lord for Holy Hubert - I knew there was something I had to be missing. I agree with him on this issue that's for sure... It is a doctrine cobbled together by men to help the weak stay weak and I speak from experience I heard it myself early on and clung to it for a while until I heard someone preach the truth and expose that darkness. This is how things get so confused - Paul told that bunch in Corinth they were still carnal - he did not give them assurance that they would be able to stand at the end if they did not move on. God isnot going to take a bunch of devils to heaven with him. Those who walk after the Spirit are the ones who make it. judyt From: Kevin Deegan JD says Just remember this -- you do not believe Thanks for reminding me what I believe! Next time I need to know what I believe on a particular subject I will check with you FIRST! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, this is offered as a criticism. No solutions -- just criticism. Just remember this -- you do not believe in passages such as I cor 3:1 and the reality they present. That is what we know from this thread. jd -- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD says we all know of your theology on the matters cited You're all set then: It should be a piece of cake for you or that matter any other to summarize my beliefs on the matter, as you say YOU ALL KNOW SINCE YOU ALL KNOW, I NEED NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME ON THIS! If thare are any other issues you have concern for, just check with yourself since you ALREADY KNOW Thanks : ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like a bear with his foot in a trap !! It is so easy to set the record straight. You are all over people or activiity such as the one shared by Lance and his friend, Joanna Williams, and yet, you now seem to want others to believe that I have misrepresented you. Not my intention at all. What would you do differently than Paul and why? Or, would you rather
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable?
My understanding of Gen. 1-11 is not going to be exactly the same as Judy's in the sense that if I wrote a commentary on the chapters and then Judy did the same, they would differ much in the way that the different gospel accounts differ from one another. However, if we are both filled with the same Spirit, we will hear one another and receive from one another such that through our communion and fellowship with each other, we would easily come to speak the same thing about these passages. We might even continue to emphasize different points within the text, but there is this work of God within both of us that is bringing us to a unity of knowledge as well as a unity of faith (which is based upon knowledge). Now much of this concerns knowledge that comes through the Spirit. Sometimes people speculate about issues with the mind, especially about these passages that you mention. Such speculations may diverge greatly, but such is not really important in the grand scheme of things. From my perspective, it seems to me that Judy does not do a lot of this speculating and probably sees little value in it. I enjoy speculating and considering different possibilities of truth that might coincide with the Biblical text. However, I always distinguish between such speculation and knowledge that comes from the Spirit or knowledge that is directly being communicated by the sacred text. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? David:Please distinguish 'believe the same thing about these passages' from 'exact same understanding at this point in time'. It may be that resolution to the 'sticking point' may be at hand. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 09:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? Lance, I think the point Judy is making is that God's Spirit will lead the believer to believe the same thing about these passages. I don't think she means that every true believer will have the exact same understanding at this point in time. You mentioned employing 1 through 4. I actually have a lot of concern about ever employing number 4. People use emotions a lot in determining what they believe, but I think that is usually a mistake. When people go with emotion over logic, that is a mistake. Furthermore, emotions often cloud logic, and cause people to embrace falsehood. What do you think? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? 'ALL WHO ARE TAUGHT BY GOD WILL SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT GENESIS CHAPTERS 1 - 11' Have we just been provided with a perfect standard for determining who is/who is not 'taught by God'? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 16, 2006 07:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth Knowable? I disagree with Lance. I say that all who are taught by God will say the same thing about Genesis Chapters 1 through 11 These are the ones who will all be saying the same thing in the end time and this is the unity Christ prayed for... The definition of believer should be one who speaks as the oracles of God On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:38:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Take Genesis chapters 1 - 3 or, if you prefer 1 - 11. Is TRUTH taught therein? Yes! Do all believers agree upon the TRUTH that is taught therein? No!.WHY? Further, upon employing 1 - 4 below will the outcome necessarily be other than 'NO'? From: David Miller I'm going to try and weigh in a bit here. I hear from Lance that sometimes truth and one's interpretation of truth does not coincide. I hear from Judy that sometimes one's interpretation of truth does coincide. I agree with these two statements. Do both of you? I think you both do, but if not, please speak up. I hear something else from Judy (and Izzy too), and that is that Lance seems to have no basis by which we can know whether or not our interpretation of the truth is accurate. This creates a problem in discussing truth, because then we all just have opinions and nobody knows the truth. Lance, do you understand this dilemma? (By the way, I'm with Izzy Judy in this concern, so please try to address it if you can.) What standards of truth do we have, Lance? How can we know the truth? How can we know that we do know the truth? 1. The Bible? 2. The Spirit? 3. Logic? 4. Emotions? What role do each of these play in knowing truth? David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 15
Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Comfort the FORNICATORS!
Excellent comments, Judy. I think you are really hitting a home run with these points. I'm all for ministering to sinners and the sick, but my idea of ministry is solutions and healing, not a hospital club of sick and dying folk. I have remarked to my congregation here several times that we have too many sick folk. I can't help but think of Paul's words to the Corinthians, that many among them were sick and dying because they were not discerning the Lord's body. Just this morning, I had a talk with my 10 year old daughter Leisa who had fallen off the monkey bars at school last Fridayand sprained her wrist. The school nurse said it was broken, but we prayed, and when the doctor examined it, he said it was fine and didn't even charge us for the visit. My wife insisted I buy her a wrist support for her arm, which I did, but ever since we put that on her arm, the arm seemed to get worse. The wrist support is not directly hurting her arm. I'm sure it is helping in a natural way to immobilize the wrist. The problem is that the wrist support hindersfaith. I made a mistake with my faith themoment Ibought it. I wishnow I had not listened to my wife and bought it.I told my daughter this morning, if you really want your arm to be healed immediatelyinstead of going through weeks of pain before it is well, you will have to get rid of the wrist support. If you believe God for healing, you won't be putting that support on your arm. The minute you do, you are failing to believe God. Now if you have not received healing and you need the support, then fine, put it on, but you need to understand how this wrist support is hindering you from believing Jesus for healing. I told her that she has experienced healing before through us, but she is getting to the age now where God is expecting her to exercise her own faith. I'm hoping she ditches the wrist support and I will hear her praise report tonight. David Miller - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [TruthTalk] Comfort the FORNICATORS! On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:53:34 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, I honestly see a huge difference. Joanna seems to believe that those with whom she is working are in need of help -- Maybe they are in need of help but from what Joanne says they are not open to receive it .. the way I remember it, the partner was bitter against the Church for supposedly judging them which would lead one to believe that nothing has changed. the Corinthians were perfectly content with doing absolutely nothing. How do you know they were content with doing nothing? Some of the greatest altruistic works are done by out and out blasphemers and sinners. Our churches should be full of sinners willing to ask for help, willing to receive teaching, love, prayer and the spirit. The "willing" part is the crux of the issue JD. Some are willing to receive practical help on their terms .. or they want the cover of love but do not want to part with their sin and tolerating this kind of thing in the name of the Lord is pride. Paul judged it even in his absence because if this kind of thing persists the presence of God leaves and we must turn to marketing etc. like the Purpose Driven fellow is about. I see no similarity between Joanna and the Corinthian Carnals. I know that you have spoken out against the church as a "hospital," in the past and I am always surprised at such thinking.jd Do you recall Jesus asking the man at the pool of Bethseda "do you want to be made well?" Valid question. Some want the love and attention while they coddle their soul sickness. From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John, in my opinion based upon sketchy details, Joanna violated the teaching of Paul. Paul dealt with fornicators by instructing believers not to even eat with them. Paul rebuked the carnal Corinthians for doing the same thing Joanna was doing. Don't you see that? It is a difficult position to take, but that is the Scripture of 1 Cor. 3:1ff, 1 Cor. 5, etc. Now, we don't hear all the facts about her situation, so there are other possibilities here. Perhaps Joanna did not know this person very well and had not had time to instruct the person in righteousness. If this person responds to her admonition that such is wrong, then I don't have a problem with her eating with the person. However, if this person is a believer who knows better and ju stifies his fornication with the notion that everybody sins, then we have a problem along the lines of
Re: [TruthTalk] The gates of hell?
Dave, I see the gates of hell as a metaphor in the same way as let the dead bury the dead is a metaphor. There is spiritual warfare going on as described in the book of Daniel (esp. chapters 10 11). The gates of hell refer to the strongholds of Satan in this world system, and when Jesus says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (the church), he means that the community of believers, when believing God and walking in faith, conquer sin, death, and everything associated with it. Hades / Sheol is that domain of the dead, and the gates that guard it are no match for the church. The church brings resurrection life and righteousness and joy, just the opposite of what hell is all about. David Miller - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] The gates of hell? The gates of hell? DAVEH: How do you perceive the gates of hell, DavidM? From my perspective, as hell is used here, it relates to hades and the gates of hell is that barrier that makes imprisons us at death. IOWwhen we die, we our spirit is effectively trapped by death, unable to return to heaven. In vss 17 18 the Lord effectively tells Peter that he is building (gathering) his church (those who are called by the Lord--his followers) with revelation, and that death (gates of hell) can't keep his followers from progressing beyond death. That means we are to advance into hell and beat up the devil and his minions. DAVEH: If the hell spoken by the Lord in Mt 16:18 is hades, then why would you conclude that passage implies that we should advance to the unseen world to beat up the devil and his minions? I'm greatly inspired by this message to knock down the kingdom of Satan and advance the kingdom of God. DAVEH: If my above analysis of the gates of hell is correct, do you have any other passages in support of your above contention? David Miller wrote: Excellent point, Judy! Paul's admonition to the carnal Corinthians was repent, grow up, stop being babies, put the sinners out of the church, walk in love toward one another, etc. No way did he coddle them with just living as an example, like the much over quoted St. Francis is quoted, preach the gospel... use words when necessary. Words are the sword of the spirit. Without speaking the unadulterated Word of God, the kingdom of God cannot be advanced. Last night I heard a great message from a pastor in my congregation. Marcus was talking about going on the offensive against the devil. He talked about how the devil left Jesus for a season, and that when we have victory over him, he will leave us for a season. When that happens, we should be walking around looking for him and wanting to beat him up some more. When we find him, we should be saying, there you are devil, come over here, I've been looking for you, and then BAM, hit him hard and take him down. When we are hitting the devil, he should not be leaning forward, but leaning back as we hit him and hit him, until he finally runs away. I cannot help but think about the words of Jesus about how the gates of hell will not prevail against us. The gates of hell? That means we are to advance into hell and beat up the devil and his minions. I'm greatly inspired by this message to knock down the kingdom of Satan and advance the kingdom of God. Hallelujah! 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. -- 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] Love and fear
John wrote: In Christ we are not judged. How do you reconcile this idea with the following passage? 2 Corinthians 5:10-11 (10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (11) Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. David Miller -- 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] Hello
Hi Conor. Welcome to TruthTalk. Thanks for sharing about yourself. You mentioned that you were raised Catholic. Are you Catholic now? Are you able to share the Catholic perspective with us on issues? 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] Fw: excerpt redux
Very interesting dialogue, Lance. I appreciate you sharing it with us. There is much more that can be developed here. The concept of love the sinner but hate the sin is problematic in certain contexts, but it is not entirely a logical contradiction. The reason is that the concept of sinner is not fixed in stone when it comes to humans. A sinner today may not be a sinner tomorrow. This is because of grace and the work of Christ to transform a sinner into a righteous saint who obeys the commandments of God. I have to address this issue often when I preach on the homosexual deception that is sweeping across this world. I find myself needing to communicate my love for the homosexual person but my hatred for the sin of homosexuality. How can I do this? Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. It is a sin problem that is solved by faith in Jesus Christ. I have no hatred in my heart toward most of those who consider themselves to be a homosexual. In fact, sometimes I am confronted by homosexual virgins, and I have to tell them that from my perspective they are not yet homosexual if they have never had any sexual relations with other men. God does not condemn a person based upon their inner desires or temptations, but rather he condemns them for sinful actions. A few weeks ago, a student attempted to point out this logical inconsistency mentioned below, that if I truly hated homosexuality, then I would have to hate the homosexual. I agreed with him, but with a caveat, that only in the case of the homosexual who would not or could not repent. If a person has given himself completely over to sin such as homosexuality, then yes, I should hate that homosexual because he is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is only in this way that I can love those whom he is hurting by his sin. However, many of the homosexuals on campus are not in this category. There is time for them to repent and be transformed by the grace of God. Concerning those homosexuals, I love them, and it is my love for them that causes me to sacrifice in order to deliver the message of repentance and hope to them. There is one other contextual issue here as well, and that is that I am in need of grace as much as any homosexual. Therefore, I cannot sit in judgment upon his sin without putting myself in jeopardy. In other words, if my attitude is not one of love when I call for his repentance, but rather is accusatory and judgmental, then how can I expect to receive mercy myself? No, what I must do is give the message of how repentance is apprehended in Jesus Christ, through confession of sin and a turning away from all that offends God. I do this as one who has experienced this work of grace. I testify to its work and exhort others to experience it as well. Therefore, there is a love in me for that person who is still able to repent and find Christ. It is in this context, with these other considerations, that I can say that I love the person who calls himself a homosexual because of the present philosophy in the world today, but hate the sin of homosexuality and call upon him to forsake it and abandon it. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:31 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 14, 2006 22:04 Subject: excerpt redux Lance, I was just printing out the next raw chapter (on Two Kinds of Righteousness and A Meditation on Christ's Passion) in preparation for editing, and my eye lit on this portion at the end. I'm sending it to you raw, because being at the end of a 24-page chapter it'll be a while till I get to it in the editing. It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sin has no existence apart from sinners, two interesting ramifications of which are (a) that Christ, in becoming sin, became sinner, and (b) that the aphorism, hate the sin but love the sinner is problematic. I think of both of these in relation to recent (well, not so recent anymore, perhaps) threads on TT. Any thoughts? What do you do with this hatred thingy? D [Question: I was just thinking about Christ being sinner or sin. And just, without having thought about it too much, it makes sense that he would have to be a sinner if he was being punished in proxy for humanity, because God was punishing – or God needed to punish – humanity, because they, as a collective whole, were sinners, so God was punishing sinners. So unless Christ became a sinner, then it wouldn't be a perfect substitution. If God was never interested in punishing sin …] That's exactly right. [… he was punishing sinners. So if all of a sudden you're just punishing sin, it would be different. It wouldn't be the same.] You can't punish sin. You can only punish sinners, because sin has no existence apart from sinners. Sin doesn't
Re: [TruthTalk] Copyright Question
DaveH asks Gary: You've repeatedly posted copyright material on TT. Doesn't that violate copyright restrictions? I'm not a lawyer, Dave, but my understanding is that there is no problem with copying portions of an author's material for noncommercial use. The copyright laws are meant to protect the author from Gary going out and trying to make money off of the author's work. There also would be another problem, and that is if Gary's activity somehow hurt the author's sales. For example, if people did not need to buy the author's work because Gary provided it to them free of charge. Posting lyrics to songs on TruthTalk does not damage the author from my perspective. If anything, it might provide free advertising for him, maybe even help his sales if people get interested in the author's work because of what Gary has posted. The bottom line is that one must look at whether or not any damage is done to the author when copying his material. 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] The Secular versus the Religious
Some of the conflict recently has involvedthe ideology of whether or not a list like TruthTalk should be a secular list or a Christian list. There is a more general topic involved here that concernsour Bill of Rights and the concept of separation of church and State. I would likefor us to discuss this topic. The First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shallmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The historical backdrop for how this law came to be written partly concernshowthe Anglican church becamethe national religion of England since the time of King Henry the VIII. There is this history that when Roman Catholicism wasthe official religion, Protestants were put to death, and when the Anglicans came into power, a blood bath ensued against the Roman Catholics. Many came to be against the idea of theocracy because of these abuses. The idea that men should havefreedom of religion came to mean that government should not favor one religion over another, nor should religious _expression_ be infringed upon. Hence, our U.S. Constitution adopted this First Amendment. The interesting question is whether or not true believers can work within a secular system, or indeed, whether they can themselves establish and maintain secular systems. For example, how does a Bible believing Christian function in public office, whether as a Judge in the court system, as Mayor or Governor, or as President? Our public educational system involves this same secular philosophy. The idea is that no religious body or philosophy should control it. Can Christians participate effectively in such? Can Christians be school teachers, principals, or even establish schools of education based upon secularism? Let me put forth the questions this way in order to give us a start. If you were in the position of being able to establish a school, would you make it a Christian school or would you make it a secular school? If you would make it a Christian school, why would you do that? If secular, why? Also, if you were to make it a Christian school, would you think that a fellow Christian who established a secular school was wrong to do so? If you were to make it a secular school, do you think the fellow Christian who established a Christian school would be unwise to do that? How much freedom do we have as Christians to choose one over the other? David Miller.
