Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????

Fri, 27 May 2005 11:56:59 -0700

This what I like about Linda  --  she doesn't stay mad long  --  except with me, of course.  But I don't mind.   She gets enough humor in there that I really do not mind. 
 
The ad hom  -------   it is as bad as it gets, which is somewhat encouraging to me.   We are big boys and girls.  Bill Keller's piece did not get to me at all  --  but Debbie's post  --  well ,  I nearly always take stuff like that personal.   It helps to get us back on track.   Whether you care for all the participants or not  -   this forum is one interesting collection of humanoidism.   In the midst of all the mud balls, there is a nugget or two.  
 
JD  (back in the immersion tank  -- aka dumbkuff  --------------Gaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr      eeeeeeeee)
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:57:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????

Excellent! Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 27, 2005 13:51
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????

Okay, I have a minute before dashing out the door.  How about “God is love”?  A child (or a liberal with childish thinking) will think, “Oh, God loves me—He will only do things a loving father would do.”  This is absolutely True!  However, when this child gets a bit older he realizes that “God is love” might also mean that God chastens those whom He loves, which is not all ice cream and cookies.  This is also True!  And if the child gets older and wiser in the Lord he will read “God is love” also means that God allows the rebellious to enter an eternity in hell, because love would not allow evil into the Kingdom of God.  This is True also.  All three interpretations are true, but some are more full, mature truth.  Izzy
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
Yes, mommy, I do. Please?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 27, 2005 11:54
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
To clarify, Lance, none of the CORRECT interpretations invalidate the others—they must be in agreement with them, just perhaps some have deeper understanding.  Do you need examples? Izzy
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
NO.  You obviously just don’t get it, Lance.  You seem to think that everyone’s differing opinions are all correct.  Izzy
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
Izzy says re:understanding of scripture: 'none of them invalidate the others.' IFF I have 'UNDERSTOOD YOU' correctly then, shouldn't you just be amening everyone's interpretation/understanding of every scripture?
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 27, 2005 08:32
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
Lance, there is definitely only one “accurate” understanding of scripture—and that is God’s intended meaning.  Granted, there are deeper levels of “accurate” understanding, but none of them invalidate the others.  Izzy
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
I'm just re-referencing the presence of diverse understandings of Scripture by genuine believers. You don't disagree with that do you, Judy? Is there, in all cases, ONE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? I'd be interested in hearing back on this? I am prepared, unless anyone out there chooses to disagree, to say that 'it' isn't mine. Would any of you add your names to that list (thus demonstrating the accuracy of my 'formula' - please feel free to include your own, mor accurate formula) 
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Taylor
Sent: May 27, 2005 05:38
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] A possible 'kingdom' response to 911??????
 
What did Christine say below that exhibits such a failure to understand?  All three were cursed including
the creation for their sakes...  So how does your "other" gospel say the scenario goes?  jt
 
On Fri, 27 May 2005 05:17:37 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christine:Did I 'miss' your response to the query concerning those who'know' Christ as a living presence in their lives but, fail to 'know' the meaning of Scripture in some or, many areas. (such as you just exhibited)?
What about God's actions in Genesis when he punished Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit? First he addressed Adam, who pointed to Eve, then he asked Eve, who pointed to the serpent. But God never asked the serpent for his explanation. He simply commensed with the cursing. I always found that fact interesting, and I think it applies here.
 
Blessings 

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David:I believe you slipped past the word 'not'. I do not believe this to be entirely nuts. I do not agree with your analogy either.This approach may well exemplify 'the gospel of the kingdom as preached by Jesus'. What was Jesus' response in the garden to Peter's action toward the soldier?
From: David Miller
Lance wrote:
> Anyone other than myself think that this is
> not entirely not nuts? Wait until I put my body
> armour on before responding.
 
I agree with you, Lance.  Such an idea is nuts.  It assumes that those who attacked on 9/11 are not evil.  It is akin to God inviting Satan to dinner, asking him to explain why he has acted against him and his creation, and then attempting to negotiate a response with him that would avoid the judgment of the lake of fire.
 
Peace be with you.
David Miller.

Reply via email to