Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
David: I believe I can. Words mean things. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 15:58 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > Here's the full quote: "Certainly the Godelian > > theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive > > system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic > > system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics." > > Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics > > were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't. > > I don't consider syntax and semantics to be the same thing, so I'm not > sure why you would say that such is necessary for me to be home free. > > You mentioned Godel, a mathematician who has stirred a lot of debate, so > I searched further about this word "syntactics." It is a specialized > term not in my dictionary, but I did find a definition indicating that > it does not have the same meaning as syntax. Syntactics is a SINGULAR > NOUN and should not be confused with the word SYNTACTIC, an adjective > relating to syntax. Syntactics refers to the branch of semiotics that > deals with the formal properties of symbol systems. My comments might > not apply because I assumed you meant syntax instead of syntactics, a > word that was unknown to me at the time I read your statement. > Therefore, please explain this statement this statement for us. What > exactly does it mean? If you believe the statement to be true, > certainly you can make the case for us. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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] The Mediation of Christ
Izzy: I humbly acknowledge the importance of life lived over life discussed.Amen and thanks for this. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 11, 2004 16:20 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ -Original Message-Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ Izzy: I'd really appreciate it if you didn't "play" to this stereotype. You write well. I looked through your book. I read your description of the time the two of you had at the park.Izzy, you say important things well and with more warmth than most. At least read while quilting. Remember what I said: Women live theology while men speak of it. This so-called "conversation" is about Jesus. I already know He matters to you more than anyone or anything. I believe that when He came to this earth to become one of us He then proceded to redeem us as a man empowered by the Spirit of God. I believe that it is as a man, empowered by the Spirit, that He overcame Satan, sin, sickness and death. This same Spirit that empowered Jesus empowers us. Is this essentially what you believe? Blessings, Lance Lance, I know you will be disappointed in me, but when you guys get into these fascinating nitpicking sessions about what came first, the chicken or the egg, and what is the meaning of the meaning of the meaning, etc., my eyes just glaze over. I know you cant imagine not finding all that extremely interesting, but thats the way it is for mesorry! Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. As for your question, though, yes I agree with what you say above. Im so sure of all that that I dont even feel the need to research it further. I even believe He overcame sin so much that it is a dead issue for Believers. We dont have to do it any more, and have no excuse if we do. (Especially, But everybody does it!) I really like your quote, Lance, that Women live theology while men speak of it. What I wish to do is live it out, rather than study about it. Part of that is through my creativity: writing, quilting, homemaking, gardening, volunteer work, and enjoying my family, friends, animals, and nature. I believe that by rubbing elbows with my neighbors, friends, and family I can be a real life Ambassador for Christ in the world. All I do or create can reflect Him. The smaller and less important it is, the better. A well-tended garden is a true thing of beauty in Gods economy. What ever we touch should shine for Him. I believe in living out the Proverbs 31 woman every day. Even while jesting with Elsman and you all on TT. (TT would really get boring if there was no one to tease! Someone as prickly as Elsman is a rare opportunity!) Izzy PS You cant read while quilting! (But you can listen to music.) PPS Here is what my son (with the Grandbabies) wrote inside my mothers day card: Thank you for teaching me to desire things of eternal value. Your wisdom, generosity, and personal holiness have greatly blessed me and my family. Rejoice as you witness the fruit of your obedience and faithfulness multiplied to future generations! Now that is what being a Proverbs 31 woman is all about! Praise the Lord, who makes ordinary lives, doing ordinary things for Him, count for eternity!!!
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Bill Taylor wrote: Another thing to keep in mind when reading Torrance is this: we are ontologically in Christ from birth via the go'el aspect of the atonement; but the gift of the Holy Spirit is received at the point of trusting in Jesus Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as repentance, sometimes as belief, sometimes as faith, sometimes as conversion. DM responds > So in the theology of Torrance, repentance, belief, faith, and conversion are all the same thing, or is there some distinction made between these terms? BT: I was not as clear here as I should have been. I meant to say that in the NT there are different terms, sometimes used interchangeably, to speak of that change of mind which brings us to trust in Christ. When we read of "faith" on the part of a believer, this faith includes that change of mind, a shift away from trusting in ourselves or others or other gods to trusting in Christ. Faith and belief are not only metanoia but metanoia is present in belief and faith. Torrance recognizes this and so does not always draw as distinct a separation between these terms as do many Christians. DM > Your characterization of the Anabaptist position toward Baptism did not seem accurate to me. I think they were attempting to restore much of the reality of what Torrance teaches, turning away from dead rituals that have only an external form, but rather than distract from Torrance and discuss that, I'm going to ignore that for now. BT: You are quite correct in regards to what the Anabaptists were attempting to restore. However, this is not the point of Torrance's departure. The result of Anabaptist theology on its recipient groups, in Torrance's mind, has lead to an over-externallizing of the sacraments (sybolism over substance). If you have a desire later on to flush this out, we can come back to it. DM > I will say that I agree with Torrance's view of the sacraments, and have for a very long time. The difficulties arise in how he seems to want to marry certain tenets of Reformed theology with his correct view of the Atonement and Incarnation. This gets especially problematic when we consider how we should preach the gospel to sinners. Eventually, we will be discussing these things, but for now, let's get back to semantics and agree upon terms and definitions. Bill Taylor wrote: "The Gospel, then, calls for conversion, a fundamental change of mind, a radical departure from our former way of life. In other words, to believe the Gospel is to convert. BUT "conversion" is not what saves us. To convert is simply to align ourselves with the truth and reality of him who does save us: Jesus Christ." I can agree with what you say here, as I preach the gospel in this fashion, declaring the good news, and persuading men to repent of their sin and obey the gospel. Something still seems odd here, perhaps in your phrase, "conversion is not what saves us." I don't think I have ever taught that conversion saves us, or even thought of it that way. Yet, you seem compelled to raise this point and I'm not sure why. BT: This point is raised firstly as a point of clarification. I am somewhat confident in my understanding of "typical" evangelical speech in regards to the language of salvation, "saved by faith," for example. I am also aware that in some instances this is biblical language; however, we must first interpret the meaning of words before they can become meaningful to us. And so I push this point to draw from you an interpretation, a clarification in your own thinking as to what exactly you understand these sayings to mean. Your conclusion will be yours to make. I only push this to point help you to understand the dynamics involved in drawing that conclusion. Secondly, I stress this point because it is crucial to an accurate apprehension of Torrance's thought. If this is missed, then much of what Torrance says subsequent to this will be lost or misunderstood. To use Jonathan's words, this is one of those "control" beiefs for Torrance. Jesus Christ is solidly at the center of Torrance's thought. His entire theology is grounded in his apprehension of Jesus Christ. We all think ours is as well; however, when pushed and if honest, we will find we are not nearly so centered as we thought. Torrance can help us here. DM > I still have problems with the idea that everyone is born into Christ at physical birth. Torrance himself says on page 67, "That 'great mystery', as St. Paul described it, of the union between Christ and his Church is primarily and essentially corporate in nature, but it applies to all individual members of his Body WHO ARE INGRAFTED INTO CHRIST BY BAPTISM and continue to live in union with him as they feed upon his body and blood in Holy Communion." Here he says that they are ingrafted into Christ by baptism. How do we reconcile that with the idea of being born into Christ at physical birth BEFORE baptism? B
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ--MAJORING IN MINORS
GENTS, THE BELOW IS WHY I CANNOT WASTE TIME ON THIS TOPIC. SHAME!! YOU NEED ONE OF THE GIRLS HEREON TO REALLY READ YOU THE RIOT ACT, SO GOOD ARE THEY AT PUTTING A "HIT" ON SOMEONE, TO USE LANGUAGE OF THE MEAN DETROIT STREETS!! DO I HEAR A WITNESS? ---ELSMANSTEIN In a message dated 5/11/2004 2:34:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance wrote: >"No syntactics contains it's own semantics." >Agree/Disagree? I don't understand your statement here because of invalid syntax. :-) LOL. Does my statement give you a hint about how I will answer you? Syntactic is an adjective, and syntactics is not really a word, so maybe you meant to use the noun syntax instead of syntactics? Also, "it's" means "it is" and does not indicate possessiveness, but I think that perhaps you meant to indicate possessiveness. So now I must begin to speculate upon what you were trying to say and answer accordingly. If you meant syntax, I would disagree with the statement. Some language phrases carry a different meaning based upon word order (syntax). In other words, syntax conveys meaning itself. For example, if I were to say, "my dog blue is happy" you might understand that blue is the name of my dog who has a pleasant disposition, but if I said, "my dog happy is blue," then you would understand something different, that happy is the name of my dog. Interestingly, you might notice that you could not tell whether I meant to communicate whether the dog is sad or whether the dog is actually blue in color without context or some additional definition from me, the author. Another example might be found by examining more simple languages such as that used in computer programming. Some programming languages have an end of statement character that carries a very specific meaning. This is syntax. For example, in PASCAL, if you leave off the semi-colon at the end of the statement, the program will not be understood by the compiler and it will not compile. Clearly, in this case, syntax has its own semantic (meaning). Even in the sentence you wrote above, the rules of syntax suggests you miscommunicated in that "it's" means "it is" and the proper possessive form that you probably meant to use is "its." Now I might overlook your violation of this rule of syntax and infer your real meaning despite your actual word, but that would not mean that syntax itself does not have its own meaning (semantic). It would mean that I was ignoring the meaning conveyed through syntax alone in order to speculate about what you were actually trying to communicate.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ---SO HEAVENLY MINDED; OF NO EARTHLY GOOD
GENTS, YOU GUYS NEED A SHRINK TO HELP YOU WITH THIS GIBBERISH & POPPYCOCK, AND I SAY THAT MOST RESPECTFULLY, FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE REAL ME. HOWEVER, WHO IS "ME"? WILL WE EVER KNOW IN A PURE ONTOLOGICAL SENSE? HELP!!! I AM GETTING SUCKED INTO THE MAELSTROM BY THE NOMENCLATURE OF THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL CHALLENGE!! ---ELSMANSTEIN In a message dated 5/11/2004 3:58:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance wrote: >Here's the full quote: "Certainly the Godelian >theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive >system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic >system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics." >Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics >were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't. I don't consider syntax and semantics to be the same thing, so I'm not sure why you would say that such is necessary for me to be home free. You mentioned Godel, a mathematician who has stirred a lot of debate, so I searched further about this word "syntactics." It is a specialized term not in my dictionary, but I did find a definition indicating that it does not have the same meaning as syntax. Syntactics is a SINGULAR NOUN and should not be confused with the word SYNTACTIC, an adjective relating to syntax. Syntactics refers to the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of symbol systems. My comments might not apply because I assumed you meant syntax instead of syntactics, a word that was unknown to me at the time I read your statement. Therefore, please explain this statement this statement for us. What exactly does it mean? If you believe the statement to be true, certainly you can make the case for us. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
David writes > However, Torrance does tend to go further and were it not for Bill's comments here in this forum, I'm not sure I would have grasped how far he was going with this. David, I am not nearly as good a communicator as I need to be under these circumstances. I am finding that I have thought these things for a very long time but am having great difficulty putting my thoughts into words. I would like to encourage you not to get discouraged with me. I will try to do my best to explain myself and my understanding of Torrance. I would like to also encourage Lance and Jonathan to jump in at every point that they think I have not communicated fairly, and accurately, and clearly Torrance's positions. By the way, Lance, did you ever get a copy of this book to John? I am sure he would like to get involved in this too. Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:40 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > In your own words WHAT DOES TFT MEAN when > > speaking of THE VICARIOUS LIFE AND DEATH > > OF THE MEDIATOR? > > Torrance points out the importance of not looking at the work of Christ > as merely external representation. Jesus Christ was not just the leader > of humanity to represent us before God. Rather, we must merge with the > idea of representation the idea of substitution, thereby understanding > the Incarnation as Jesus being fully human, and thereby able to act in > our stead, as a human being, doing that which none of us were able to > do. When we comprehend his humanity in this way, we better understand > his vicarious life and death as mediator, because he truly was acting > out of the ontological depths of his being. So in the Incarnation, God > comes to us as man, and thereby reconciles us to God through that > humanity. > > I have no problem with this perspective, as it parallels my own > perspective for the last 20 years. However, Torrance does tend to go > further and were it not for Bill's comments here in this forum, I'm not > sure I would have grasped how far he was going with this. > > One thing Torrance says concerning this vicarious work of Christ is in > how he views Christ's baptism, as a baptism of vicarious repentance for > us. My initial reaction to this is to ask, "so then if Christ was > baptized unto repentance vicariously for us, does that mean that none of > us need to be baptized unto repentance?" Also, "if Christ repented for > us, and if he believed for us, then does that mean we do not need to > repent and do not need to believe"? I know that you guys believe in > both repentance and faith, so I must reconcile this by speculating that > what you are really saying is that when we do repent and when we do have > faith, it comes not from our own selves, but it is a manifestation of > the operation of Christ within us. That sounds just fine... I have > always looked at all goodness within me as coming from Christ and that > without God, there can be no good. However, you seem to suggest that > all of this is natural and applies to all men upon their being born into > this world, whereas I see that our faith in the gospel as being makes > this work of Christ a reality in our lives. I see one of the > difficulties that Jesus faced with men was their lack of faith. He was > always rebuking their unbelief and hardness of heart. Maybe I just need > to chew on this some more and it will sink in. :-) > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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] The Mediation of Christ
Good response. Very helpful. Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of semantic? > > The word "semantic" refers to the meaning of words. Sometimes a person > might say the same thing but use different words. For example, someone > might say, "that was really Great!" Another person might say, "No, that > was really Excellent!" They both might be trying to communicate > identical concepts, but the words they use are different and might have > different meanings for each of them. > > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of syntax? > > The word "syntax" refers to how words are organized and arranged into > phrases and sentences to communicate an idea. > > Lance wrote: > > How can a difference be more than semantic? > > Easy. Sometimes people really mean to communicate something different. > > For example, if I was to describe gravity as a force between objects > that have mass, that would be different than describing gravity as a > path in space which objects tend to follow. This difference is what > lies at the heart of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. > According to the Newtonian viewpoint, light would not be effected by > gravity because it has no mass. On the other hand, Einstein's model > predicts that gravity effects light too. > > In regards to theology, some might talk about righteousness as a legal > standing with God, whereas someone else might see righteousness as being > more than that, as indicating a virtue within the heart of man. The > latter concept sees righteousness as a thing having existence within > man, whereas the former sees righteousness as something external to man, > something which only effects God's view of man regardless of man's > actual state of being. In this case, there is a semantic component of > defining the word "righteousness" but there is more than that. There is > an actual difference in perspective of the truth being discussed. There > is a difference in the actual apprehension of reality and not just in > what words are used to communicate that understanding. > > If I were to say that an argument is primarily semantic, it would mean > that the persons discussing the subject perceive the actual truth in the > same way, but they differ in the words they use to describe that truth. > If an argument is more than just semantics, then it means that the > opposing viewpoints substantially differ in their actual comprehension > of the truth and not just in what words they choose to use to convey > that understanding. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP--ELSMAN DISGORGES
In a message dated 5/11/2004 3:47:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, it doesnât bother me a bit, as that is what I assumed. And you have no idea about my personality, I think. BTW, Elsman, do you have any hobbies or interests (other than picking on defenseless women)? J I canât imagine what a person such as yourself does for fun. Izzy BESIDES PICKING ON DEFENSELESS WOMEN---AND I DO CONCEDE THE LANGUAGE IS ACCURATE PER SE---I PLAY INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FOR OUTLET, BESIDES MY PREACHING HERE AND ABROAD (INDONESIA, CANADA, S. AFRICA, INDIA, CHINA, ETC.). DAVID KNOWS ALL. I ALSO HUNT AND FISH, ESPECIALLY AT A RANCH I OWNDEER, BEAR, ELK, BOBCAT, TURKEY , GROUSE. ---COWBOY JIM, AS MOST CALL ME (IN TENNIS, THEY CALL ME "THE DETROIT ASSASSIN"). IF YOU KNOW THE INTERNET, YOU WILL FIND ME AT "USTA TENNIS.COM". MY WEBPAGE IS: JESUSLAWYER.COM I SEEK NOT TO RUN & HIDE, BUT AM FILLETED OUT IN THE OPEN.
Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
In a message dated 5/11/2004 9:17:16 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy. So your husband's name is Grady? I think this is the firsttime I have heard it. Thanks for sharing that with us. That is a riot. My husband's name was Grady! Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists
Thanks for sharing that website. Very informative. We just studied this group and it was enlightening. Laura
[TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ---SO HEAVENLY MINDED; OF NO EARTHLY GOOD
Elsman, I just got in and had my laugh for the day. It would be interesting to get to know the REAL ontological you :) I know you are pulling our chains most of the time but at least you are consistent. Last night I listened to a couple of the messages on that Anxiety Website. They have the radio programs on there from Detroit. Why did Hubert start out OK and then get into the "two legged devil" rant all the time? Even so I think I would have liked him - if not his theology, or yours. judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GENTS, YOU GUYS NEED A SHRINK TO HELP YOU WITH THIS GIBBERISH & POPPYCOCK, AND I SAY THAT MOST RESPECTFULLY, FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE REAL ME. HOWEVER, WHO IS "ME"? WILL WE EVER KNOW IN A PURE ONTOLOGICAL SENSE? HELP!!! I AM GETTING SUCKED INTO THE MAELSTROM BY THE NOMENCLATURE OF THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL CHALLENGE!! ---ELSMANSTEINIn a message dated 5/11/2004 3:58:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lance wrote:>Here's the full quote: "Certainly the Godelian >theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive >system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic>system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics.">Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics >were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't.I don't consider syntax and semantics to be the same thing, so I'm notsure why you would say that such is necessary for me to be home free. You mentioned Godel, a mathematician who has stirred a lot of debate, soI searched further about this word "syntactics." It is a specializedterm not in my dictionary, but I did find a definition indicating thatit does not have the same meaning as syntax. Syntactics is a SINGULARNOUN and should not be confused with the word SYNTACTIC, an adjectiverelating to syntax. Syntactics refers to the branch of semiotics thatdeals with the formal properties of symbol systems. My comments mightnot apply because I assumed you meant syntax instead of syntactics, aword that was unknown to me at the time I read your statement.Therefore, please explain this statement this statement for us. Whatexactly does it mean? If you believe the statement to be true,certainly you can make the case for us.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
Fw: Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
Now that's unusual Laura , I don't think Grady is a very common name. I wanted to name our son Grady but my husband wouldn't let me so it won't come down generationally in our family. The only other Grady we knew of was that fellow on Sandford & Son. judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 5/11/2004 9:17:16 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Judy. So your husband's name is Grady? I think this is the firsttime I have heard it. Thanks for sharing that with us. That is a riot. My husband's name was Grady! Laura
RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting questions, Izzy.
Izzy: guess Im confusing what you believe with the sort of thing that Paul spoke about when he taught at the statue to the Unknown God. Didnt the Romans have multiple gods when Jesus walked on the earth? TPW: The Romans had their gods, the Celts, the Teutons, the Egyptians, the Gauls, and pretty much everyone else had their own tribal gods. Really, when God Incarnate walked the earth, Other people had their own faith and their own ways. Izzy: So you believe in some multiple gods that are still living? Where are they? Does your religion have any solution for the evil in people, or does it care? (As you know that is the main issue with Christianity-a solution for sin.) TPW: Well, to those believing, they are in what's known as "Asgard". Which would be our version of heaven.But also in the hearts and wills of the practionner who seeks to emulate their attributes. I mean while your God is in "heaven", don't he also reside in your heart? As for "sin", we don't have that concept since it's an exclusive to the judeo-christian faiths.However we know that all things that a man does, whether good or bad will come back to aid him or harm him. Izzy: What did/do your parents think of this? Arent they RCC? (So were mine.) TPW: Living in Quebec, most people lived under the RCC rule and influence, but with time that withered to nothing as people smelled the bull coming out of them (this was known as the "quiet revolution") My parents were baptized as children as they did with me when I was but a mere infant. My father is agnostic. My mother came back to her roots a while later although for many years she was a regular church-goer, she also partook in much of the church activities, but also remembered the old ways. Both are supportive of my ways. And with my father's help and my diligent research were were able to shed light on another branch of our family history (father is a genealogy buff). Izzy: No problem. Obviously there ARE rebukers on TT. I hope not to be one of them. TPW: So far you haven't done a thing that remotely ressembles their behaviour. I will even say that you are civil and show true curiosity about who we are while still disagreeing with our ways. That is most commendable. TPW _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines -- "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 Infants who Die
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! Babies that die go to hell. Hell is the grave. All who die go to hell. After the final judgment then hell and death (and whoever has been returned there) are cast into the lake of fire. Simple scriptural truth. Where is the Scripture that notes babies -- or anybody else for that matter -- goes to heaven when they die (or at any other time for that matter)? Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists
From Marlin: I think that the word "denomination" applies to the group. But this is not a compliment. I prefer home churches and being led directly of God, rather than by a hierarchy of human leaders. I am responsible for my own actions before God, not any leader other than God can give me salvation. But there are some things that a cooperating organized group can do that smaller groups cannot for outreaches and teaching. There are good works that larger groups can do. This site has some level-headedness about the use of their fallible leader in the past. Many SDAs elevate her writings to the level of scripture, unable to see the differences. They observe human ideas about spices, alcohol, music, vegetarianism, no vinegar, and coffee is bad while chocolate is okay. Few of them ask why, and conservatives look for evidence to prove that Ellen was right with scholarly dissertations. http://www.capitalmemorial.org/egwonegw.htm Ellen G. Whites Counsel on the Use ofHer Writings With Respect to the Bible Note: Ellen G. White claimed her writings to be the lesser light to lead us to the Bible, the greater light. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. (Colporteur Evangelism, p. 37) When we fail in this objective and make the Spirit of Prophecy the final word, we do a great injustice to the church and Ellen G. White and rightfully deserve to be called a cult! [followed by several quotes.] - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists The website looks very interesting,Marlin. Its good to know the background on SDAs. Its always good to hear from you. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlin halversonSent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists My computer was attacked by that sasser virus and I missed a bunch of mail, gone forever because of hotmail account limitations. Regarding the SDAs. I have been fellowshipping among them for a couple of years now as a guest. There are wonderful people there. The group as a whole is healthy enough to assimilate some diversity without crumbling. I have decided to put some space between them and myself and family for a time. A conflict arose over appropriate forms of music and I do not want to be the one telling them what is right more than I have already done. There are conservative views that date back to the thoughts of Ellen White that are not even part of some of the official guidelines, guidelines currently under revision. The following web site is helpful for an insight into past developments that have led up to current stands. Conflicts can arise from unstated beliefs that are passed down through generations of members. http://www.isitso.org/guide/sda.html Marlin - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Good attitude, John. Ive not looked into Adventists because Ive had friends in the past warn me against it, and I dont think my husband would be interested, as he loves our non-D church. But Ive read some very favorable things about how healthy they are due to their beliefs in keeping OT dietary laws. Are you Adventist? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 9:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Just to clarify:The Adventist church in most communities I am aware of, is accepted by most of the other churches as part of the larger Christian community. One of the local radio stations is a Christian music station run by the Adventist church. It features announcements from all Christian churches, and has advertisement from across the board. In time, it's doctrine of exclusion will be completely gone. The folks I know are great people, claiming the name of Jesus. I am not aware that correct doctrinal thinking is a requirement for salvation. Community among believers is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Many in TT share this sense of community. Peace outJohn Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] On Infants who Die
Bill Taylor wrote: > Finally, the Arminian theory approaches our issue > from a different starting point. In this paradigm, > all persons, infants, and adults alike, are seen as > fallen, sinful, at least partially depraved, and > guilty in the sight of God. What specific Arminians do you have in mind when you say that they believe that the infants are guilty in the sight of God? As I'm sure you know, Jacobus Arminius himself did not believe that. Wesley was probably the closest to believing this, but he made a distinction between Original Guilt and Guilt for actual sins. You affirm this by quoting him later, showing that Wesley denied any would be damned for original sin. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] Interesting questions, Izzy.
TPW, I still can't comprehend someone believing the way you do. It is as foreign to me as a man from Mars. All of my life I've heard of many different religions, but always thought that true paganism died out with the dinosaurs, so to speak. What is it that you like about this religion of yours? What does it do for you? Are you really convinced it is the truth? Incredulous Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arsene Lupin Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting questions, Izzy. Izzy: guess I'm confusing what you believe with the sort of thing that Paul spoke about when he taught at the statue to the Unknown God. Didn't the Romans have multiple gods when Jesus walked on the earth? TPW: The Romans had their gods, the Celts, the Teutons, the Egyptians, the Gauls, and pretty much everyone else had their own tribal gods. Really, when God Incarnate walked the earth, Other people had their own faith and their own ways. -- "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP--ELSMAN DISGORGES
Elsman, It is so heartening for me to hear that you also attack innocent animals and other tennis players, in addition to defenseless, harmless, and charming women. I feared that perhaps you only had a one track mind. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP--ELSMAN DISGORGES In a message dated 5/11/2004 3:47:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, it doesn’t bother me a bit, as that is what I assumed. And you have no idea about my personality, I think. BTW, Elsman, do you have any hobbies or interests (other than picking on defenseless women)? J I can’t imagine what a person such as yourself does for fun. Izzy BESIDES PICKING ON DEFENSELESS WOMEN---AND I DO CONCEDE THE LANGUAGE IS ACCURATE PER SE---I PLAY INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FOR OUTLET, BESIDES MY PREACHING HERE AND ABROAD (INDONESIA, CANADA, S. AFRICA, INDIA, CHINA, ETC.). DAVID KNOWS ALL. I ALSO HUNT AND FISH, ESPECIALLY AT A RANCH I OWNDEER, BEAR, ELK, BOBCAT, TURKEY , GROUSE. ---COWBOY JIM, AS MOST CALL ME (IN TENNIS, THEY CALL ME "THE DETROIT ASSASSIN"). IF YOU KNOW THE INTERNET, YOU WILL FIND ME AT "USTA TENNIS.COM". MY WEBPAGE IS: JESUSLAWYER.COM I SEEK NOT TO RUN & HIDE, BUT AM FILLETED OUT IN THE OPEN.
Re: [TruthTalk] On Infants who Die
In a message dated 5/11/2004 9:33:11 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Babies that die go to hell. Hell is the grave. All who die go to hell. After the final judgment then hell and death (and whoever has been returned there) are cast into the lake of fire. Simple scriptural truth. wrong!!! Laura
Re: [TruthTalk] On Infants who Die
Hey David, I basically started with a contemporary Arminian position and moved backwards from there. If I were to rewrite that today I would probably begin with something like Arminians believe that infants are born with no inherent righteousness, or something on that order, and then build and demarcate on that statement. I say something like this later in my handling of the Remonstrants and Ariminius. However, I should have started here and moved forward from it. I must confess, much of what I said about Arminian beliefs came from my upbringing in the churches of Christ, which are very close to Wesley in regards to this question. The c of C did not teach that infants were sinful, but did believe they carried the guilt of original sin. They did not teach that deceased infants go to hell, but I was never really satisfied with their explanations as to why they would be saved. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:47 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] On Infants who Die > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Finally, the Arminian theory approaches our issue > > from a different starting point. In this paradigm, > > all persons, infants, and adults alike, are seen as > > fallen, sinful, at least partially depraved, and > > guilty in the sight of God. > > What specific Arminians do you have in mind when you say that they > believe that the infants are guilty in the sight of God? > > As I'm sure you know, Jacobus Arminius himself did not believe that. > Wesley was probably the closest to believing this, but he made a > distinction between Original Guilt and Guilt for actual sins. You > affirm this by quoting him later, showing that Wesley denied any would > be damned for original sin. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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] The Mediation of Christ
Bill Taylor wrote: > Many, many children have died in infancy before giving > or even being able to give any indication that they are > in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet you agree with > me that these children are not destined for damnation. > They are safe and will "go to heaven." The question is, > why are they safe? Simple. They have not sinned. I believe that the judgment is based upon works. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 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. 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. (2 Corinthians 5:9-11 KJV) Bill Taylor wrote: > If a "relationship" with Christ is a prerequisite > to being "in" Christ, ... No, I don't mean to say that it is a "prerequisite" but rather that being IN CHRIST conveys a relationship. My newborn child has a relationship with me because that child was born to me. In the same way, those IN CHRIST have a relationship with Christ, even infants. Bill Taylor wrote: > then we may want to believe > that children are safe (and this because of things > we believe about the kind of God we have) but we > have no real assurance that they are. Sure we do, just as much assurance as we can have that if an innocent man appears before an all knowing and just Judge, that man will not be condemned for something he did not do. Is it possible that you have not separated yourself from Calvin enough to recognize the problems it is creating for your present theology? You seem to be trying very hard to resolve a problem that for someone like me is extremely simple. Bill Taylor wrote: > If "faith" and "repentance" (and on and on) are > the conditions which must be met on our end in > order to be saved, then we can only speculate as > to how anyone can be saved in the absence of these > things -- even though we may know intuitively that > our God is not a god that would send infants to hell. You don't seem to make a distinction between the person who has committed sins deserving of death and the infant who has committed no sins. The former needs a way out of his problem, whereas the latter does not. Bill Taylor wrote: > What I want to know, is IF this first Gospel is > present and set forth in the Bible, where do we > find the second gospel, the one that explains WHY > kids don't need these things? It's one thing to > believe THAT they don't (even if this is true); > it is another to explain WHY they don't. The why is EASY. The wages of sin is death. Infants have not sinned. The why is answered. There is no need for any "second gospel." The gospel is for those who have found themselves sinners, those who have heard the law and have been convinced of their deserving damnation. Infants don't need any gospel, either first or second. Bill Taylor wrote: > There is much more to Christ's atoning work than > the Protestant theory of substitutionary atonement > can explain. This theory in and of itself is incapable > of addressing certain questions (the one regarding infants > in particular). It seems to me that all the problems you perceive were caused by Calvin, and if you would completely ditch the Reform theology, you would easily come to a much more clear and simple theology that answers all these questions. Bill Taylor wrote: > Torrance gets us through this problem. He finds in > Scripture through the examples of atonement in the > OT several other aspects of atonement besides just > a penal substitution. As I have stated before, one > of these aspects is realized through the go'el. > What Christ did in his flesh he did in all flesh > because he is our Kinsmen Redeemer. Do you think this teaching is original with Torrance? I have heard this Kinsman Redeemer thing preached in church from the pulpit of a non-denominational church by someone I am fairly certain never heard of Torrance. As I think more and more about this, I don't think the problem has much to do with Torrance's view of the Atonement. The problem is in understanding how that Atonement is applied to us. Is it applied through us being born a human? The problem with that idea, in my way of thinking, is similar to the problems created by making baptism a replacement for circumcision. It is a way of making a spiritual covenant carnal again. The law was of the flesh, but the covenant of grace is of the spirit. We partake of it by faith, not by being born as a human being. Bill Taylor wrote: > He is our blood relative, the one who through his > lineage is qualified to represent us all; thus > when he defeats sin, death, and the devil, in his > flesh he defeats these things in all flesh. All > humanity is included in his humanity. When he died, > we died. W
RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting questions, Izzy.
Izzy wrote: > TPW, I still can't comprehend someone believing > the way you do. It is as foreign to me as a man > from Mars. All of my life I've heard of many > different religions, but always thought that true > paganism died out with the dinosaurs, so to speak. ROTFLOL. Izzy, you really need to go out to a night club area sometime and preach the gospel on the street corner. Pagans are not at all rare. If you try this in St. Louis, I bet you meet some pagans your first time out. Christians in general need to get out and declare their faith publicly. Then they will learn just where our society is at. Too many Christians stay in their bless me clubs and do not realize where society has been going. Then they criticize street preachers who encounter it every day for being so hard on sin. There are pagans, witches, and religions of all kinds out there, and Christianity in general is in a state of apostasy, asleep in the light so to speak. By the way, I have enjoyed reading your exchange with Pagan Wolf. This really is the idea of TruthTalk, to be able to share about different religions in a non-threatening way. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] The Mediation of Christ
Interesting, your comments are noted. How do you understand Ephesians 2:1-6, in particular vs 1, 3, and 5? 1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:16 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Bill Taylor wrote:> > Many, many children have died in infancy before giving > > or even being able to give any indication that they are > > in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet you agree with > > me that these children are not destined for damnation. > > They are safe and will "go to heaven." The question is, > > why are they safe? > > Simple. They have not sinned.> > I believe that the judgment is based upon works. > > Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted> of him. 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. 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. (2 Corinthians 5:9-11> KJV)> > Bill Taylor wrote:> > If a "relationship" with Christ is a prerequisite > > to being "in" Christ, ... > > No, I don't mean to say that it is a "prerequisite" but rather that> being IN CHRIST conveys a relationship. My newborn child has a> relationship with me because that child was born to me. In the same> way, those IN CHRIST have a relationship with Christ, even infants.> > Bill Taylor wrote:> > then we may want to believe > > that children are safe (and this because of things > > we believe about the kind of God we have) but we > > have no real assurance that they are. > > Sure we do, just as much assurance as we can have that if an innocent> man appears before an all knowing and just Judge, that man will not be> condemned for something he did not do.> > Is it possible that you have not separated yourself from Calvin enough> to recognize the problems it is creating for your present theology? You> seem to be trying very hard to resolve a problem that for someone like> me is extremely simple.> > Bill Taylor wrote:> > If "faith" and "repentance" (and on and on) are > > the conditions which must be met on our end in > > order to be saved, then we can only speculate as > > to how anyone can be saved in the absence of these > > things -- even though we may know intuitively that > > our God is not a god that would send infants to hell.> > You don't seem to make a distinction between the person who has> committed sins deserving of death and the infant who has committed no> sins. The former needs a way out of his problem, whereas the latter> does not.> > Bill Taylor wrote:> > What I want to know, is IF this first Gospel is > > present and set forth in the Bible, where do we > > find the second gospel, the one that explains WHY > > kids don't need these things? It's one thing to > > believe THAT they don't (even if this is true); > > it is another to explain WHY they don't.> > The why is EASY. The wages of sin is death. Infants have not sinned.> The why is answered.> > There is no need for any "second gospel." The gospel is for those who> have found themselves sinners, those who have heard the law and have> been convinced of their deserving damnation. Infants don't need any> gospel, either first or second.> > Bill Taylor wrote:> > There is much more to Christ's atoning work than > > the Protestant theory of substitutionary atonement > > can explain. This theory in and of itself is incapable > > of addressing certain questions (the one regarding infants > > in particular).> > It seems to me that all the problems you perceive were caused by Calvin,> and if you would completely ditch the Reform theology, you would easily> come to a much more clear and simple theology that answers all these> questions. > > Bill Taylor wrote:> > Torrance gets us through this problem. He finds in > > Scripture through the examples of atonement in the > > OT several other aspects of atonement besides just > > a penal substitution. As I have stated before, one > > of these aspects is realized through
Re: [TruthTalk] On Infants who Die
Chris Barr wrote: \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! Babies that die go to hell. Hell is the grave. DAVEH: Chris, do you view hell in a singular sense, or do you recognize there may be various forms of hell? For instance, death is one form of hell, and the lake of fire another...do you see it that way? All who die go to hell. After the final judgment then hell and death (and whoever has been returned there) are cast into the lake of fire. Simple scriptural truth. Where is the Scripture that notes babies -- or anybody else for that matter -- goes to heaven when they die (or at any other time for that matter)? DAVEH: ??? Are you suggesting that nobody goes to heaven? Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists
From Marlin: I think that the word "denomination" applies to the group. But this is not a compliment. I prefer home churches and being led directly of God, rather than by a hierarchy of human leaders. I am responsible for my own actions before God, not any leader other than God can give me salvation. But there are some things that a cooperating organized group can do that smaller groups cannot for outreaches and teaching. There are good works that larger groups can do. This site has some level-headedness about the use of their fallible leader in the past. Many SDAs elevate her writings to the level of scripture, unable to see the differences. They observe human ideas about spices, alcohol, music, vegetarianism, no vinegar, and coffee is bad while chocolate is okay. Few of them ask why, and conservatives look for evidence to prove that Ellen was right with scholarly dissertations. http://www.capitalmemorial.org/egwonegw.htm Ellen G. Whites Counsel on the Use ofHer Writings With Respect to the Bible Note: Ellen G. White claimed her writings to be the lesser light to lead us to the Bible, the greater light. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. (Colporteur Evangelism, p. 37) When we fail in this objective and make the Spirit of Prophecy the final word, we do a great injustice to the church and Ellen G. White and rightfully deserve to be called a cult! [followed by several quotes.] - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists The website looks very interesting,Marlin. Its good to know the background on SDAs. Its always good to hear from you. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlin halversonSent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists My computer was attacked by that sasser virus and I missed a bunch of mail, gone forever because of hotmail account limitations. Regarding the SDAs. I have been fellowshipping among them for a couple of years now as a guest. There are wonderful people there. The group as a whole is healthy enough to assimilate some diversity without crumbling. I have decided to put some space between them and myself and family for a time. A conflict arose over appropriate forms of music and I do not want to be the one telling them what is right more than I have already done. There are conservative views that date back to the thoughts of Ellen White that are not even part of some of the official guidelines, guidelines currently under revision. The following web site is helpful for an insight into past developments that have led up to current stands. Conflicts can arise from unstated beliefs that are passed down through generations of members. http://www.isitso.org/guide/sda.html Marlin - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Good attitude, John. Ive not looked into Adventists because Ive had friends in the past warn me against it, and I dont think my husband would be interested, as he loves our non-D church. But Ive read some very favorable things about how healthy they are due to their beliefs in keeping OT dietary laws. Are you Adventist? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 9:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Just to clarify:The Adventist church in most communities I am aware of, is accepted by most of the other churches as part of the larger Christian community. One of the local radio stations is a Christian music station run by the Adventist church. It features announcements from all Christian churches, and has advertisement from across the board. In time, it's doctrine of exclusion will be completely gone. The folks I know are great people, claiming the name of Jesus. I am not aware that correct doctrinal thinking is a requirement for salvation. Community among believers is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Many in TT share this sense of community. Peace outJohn Smithson
[TruthTalk] Hubert --SOME RESIST TRUTH LIKE JUDY
Only one persona and no traps Jim. The old accuser is at it again; and yes I do have a husband who likes for me to talk to him. Sometimes one is not told the story accurately. I hever heard that this warning was preached to a crowd so it came across as though HH warned Elvis' grandmother personally - to me anyway and apparently to Terry. If HH preached this to a crowd where she was present, how did he hear that he helped save Elvis in later years? Elvis did not become famous for more than 20 years following this episode? Did Hubert prophesy as a Baptist? Noah is a bad comparison, he warned for more than 100yrs. judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Excellent point Terry; wonder why he was only led to warn Elvis' grandmaThe plot thickens THERE GOES JUDY WITH HER ATTITUDE , AGAIN. DOES SHE HAVE A HUSBAND THAT HAS TO LISTEN TO THAT ALL THE TIME? SHE HAS TWO OR THREE PERSONAS---NICE ONLY WHEN SHE WANTS TO LURE YOU INTO A TRAP.HUBERT WAS A PREACHER. HUBERT PREACHED THE WARNING PUBLICLY. ELVIS' GRANDMA LISTENED. NOT ALL LISTEN AND HEED. SEE, E.G. NOAH. ---ELSMAN
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
David: As I note that Bill is responding in some detail to your question(s), I'd like to ask you the following: In your own words WHAT DOES TFT MEAN when speaking of THE VICARIOUS LIFE AND DEATH OF THE MEDIATOR? Blessings, Lance From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 10, 2004 15:34 Subject: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > This thread is for talking about Thomas F. Torrance's book, The > Mediation of Christ. > > To Bill, Lance, and Jonathan: > > I have perhaps many comments, but I'm going to take this a little at a > time. I hope you are patient with me. > > For starters, I would like to hear your comments about Torrance's > perspective of the two sacraments being "converting ordinances." I am > especially interested in knowing if you view it this way, in light of > the comments that every person is born already in Christ. > > On p. 97, Torrance writes: > "Thus, to use earlier terminology, the sacraments of Baptism and Holy > Communion are not to be regarded merely as 'confirming ordinances' but > as 'converting ordinances', for in and through them the Gospel strikes > home to us in such a way as to draw us within the vicarious response to > God which Jesus Christ constitutes in his own humanity, the humanity > which he took from us and converted back to God the Father in himself. > > Perhaps you can comment on this in any way you like, but one thing I > wonder about is if we are all born in Christ already, and already > reconciled to God when we are born into the world, then what need is > there for "conversion"? Wouldn't everything subsequently be > "confirming"? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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.
[TruthTalk] Re:http.//www.perichoresis.org/
To all on TT who wish to follow the discussion initiated by David Miller on the book: The Mediation of Christ.C. Baxter Kruger did his doctorate on TFTorrance's Doctrine of God. It was supervised by James Torrance, Tom's brother. Whether you agree or not this will facilitate an accurate understanding of TFT's thought. Blessings, Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] Resources
See www.regentbookstore.com/. & www.perichoresis.org/ for print and audio related to the conversation on the relation of the Incarnation to the Atonement. Lectures on CD by TFT are available from Regent. Blessings, Lance
Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
Judy Taylor wrote: Actually we are flying out of here on Wednesday morning for TX. Got to be there for Grandparents day at school - we will be away 10 days but I can check in via the internet if we have any spare time. A cruise sounds much better than flying these days please pray for us, Grady & Judyt - Count on it. Terry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
David Miller wrote: Have a great trip, Terry. We will keep you in prayer. You are a blessing to us. That is about the nicest thing anyone ever said about me, but I am not certain that you could get a majority vote on it. Thanks for the comment and the prayers. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have a great trip and bring home a trip report! Laura We will probably bring home some unneeded pounds. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Hubert --HOUNDOG LIVED , TO DIE OF CONSTIPATION--CAVEAT JUDY!!
In a message dated 5/11/2004 5:08:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only one persona and no traps Jim. The old accuser is at it again; and yes I do have a husband who likes for me to talk to him. Sometimes one is not told the story accurately. I hever heard that this warning was preached to a crowd so it came across as though HH warned Elvis' grandmother personally - to me anyway and apparently to Terry. If HH preached this to a crowd where she was present, how did he hear that he helped save Elvis in later years? Elvis did not become famous for more than 20 years following this episode? Did Hubert prophesy as a Baptist? Noah is a bad comparison, he warned for more than 100yrs. judyt BAPTIST HUBERT WAS ALWAYS FRIENDS WITH THE PRESLEY FAMILY, SO HE KNEW THEY ESCAPED THE TORNADO. INDEED, WHEN THE KING WAS STILL POPULAR, HE TOLD HUBERT, PARAPHRASED: "MOST OF MY SONGS ARE USELESS; I KNOW THAT ONLY MY JESUS-SONGS WILL LAST." ---ELSMAN P.S. OH, YOU EXPECT SOME SCAT? ELVIS DIED ON A TOILET, STRAINING AWAY..CHECK IT OUT. HIS DRUGS CAUSED CONSTIPATION, WHICH MANY HEREON ARE AFFLICTED BY, TO THEIR FRUSTRATION. THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF CONSTIPATIONINCLUDING EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL, WHICH MAKE MANY WOMEN JUST PLAIN "CHIPPY". N.B. THAT THE MODERATOR GETS A TICKLE FROM MY "P.S." NOTES, SO EXPECT MORE OF THEM.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Hi Bill. I'm not sure there is much to disagree with your response, but yet it does seem to me that our grasp of this issue is not identical. Perhaps that will become more clear as our discussion progresses. When I read Torrance, I come away with a different perspective than you do, but that is surely because I bring with me baggage from a different background so that I perceive his terms and illustrations in a different manner. At times it seems that our difference is a semantic one, but then other times it seems like it is much more than that. For the time being, I want to focus on semantics a little and get a better grasp of the terms and understanding of terms that you use. Bill Taylor wrote: > Another thing to keep in mind when reading Torrance > is this: we are ontologically in Christ from birth > via the go'el aspect of the atonement; but the gift > of the Holy Spirit is received at the point of trusting > in Jesus Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as > repentance, sometimes as belief, sometimes as faith, > sometimes as conversion. So in the theology of Torrance, repentance, belief, faith, and conversion are all the same thing, or is there some distinction made between these terms? Your characterization of the Anabaptist position toward Baptism did not seem accurate to me. I think they were attempting to restore much of the reality of what Torrance teaches, turning away from dead rituals that have only an external form, but rather than distract from Torrance and discuss that, I'm going to ignore that for now. I will say that I agree with Torrance's view of the sacraments, and have for a very long time. The difficulties arise in how he seems to want to marry certain tenets of Reformed theology with his correct view of the Atonement and Incarnation. This gets especially problematic when we consider how we should preach the gospel to sinners. Eventually, we will be discussing these things, but for now, let's get back to semantics and agree upon terms and definitions. Bill Taylor wrote: > The Gospel, then, calls for conversion, a fundamental > change of mind, a radical departure from our former > way of life. In other words, to believe the Gospel > is to convert. BUT "conversion" is not what saves us. > To convert is simply to align ourselves with the truth > and reality of him who does save us: Jesus Christ. I can agree with what you say here, as I preach the gospel in this fashion, declaring the good news, and persuading men to repent of their sin and obey the gospel. Something still seems odd here, perhaps in your phrase, "conversion is not what saves us." I don't think I have ever taught that conversion saves us, or even thought of it that way. Yet, you seem compelled to raise this point and I'm not sure why. I still have problems with the idea that everyone is born into Christ at physical birth. Torrance himself says on page 67, "That 'great mystery', as St. Paul described it, of the union between Christ and his Church is primarily and essentially corporate in nature, but it applies to all individual members of his Body WHO ARE INGRAFTED INTO CHRIST BY BAPTISM and continue to live in union with him as they feed upon his body and blood in Holy Communion." Here he says that they are ingrafted into Christ by baptism. How do we reconcile that with the idea of being born into Christ at physical birth BEFORE baptism? Maybe part of my problem is understanding how someone can be IN Christ and yet not be in relationship with Christ. For me, that would be like Jesus saying that he and the Father are one, yet they are not in relationship with one another. Impossible. To be IN CHRIST surely means to be in relationship with Christ, does it not? You seem to be saying that everyone is already in Christ but don't realize it, and so when they realize it, then they are putting faith in Christ and they experience the reality of what has always been. This sounds like you are saying that the relationship was always there but not recognized and experienced? ?? Maybe you can help me understand you better, because I clearly do not seem to be understanding you. Again, my perspective regarding the Incarnation and the Atonement is very much the same, as a work already done and accomplished, but I see faith as the umbilical cord that ties us to that work and causes us to experience it. In other words, from my perspective, physical birth has absolutely nothing to do with being in Christ, but faith in Christ does. Once we connect with Christ through faith, then we experience the Incarnation and Atonement of which Torrance speaks as we are IN CHRIST and Christ is IN US. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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 PROTE
RE: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
Hi Judy. So your husband's name is Grady? I think this is the first time I have heard it. Thanks for sharing that with us. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] The Mediation of Christ
Lance wrote: > In your own words WHAT DOES TFT MEAN when > speaking of THE VICARIOUS LIFE AND DEATH > OF THE MEDIATOR? Torrance points out the importance of not looking at the work of Christ as merely external representation. Jesus Christ was not just the leader of humanity to represent us before God. Rather, we must merge with the idea of representation the idea of substitution, thereby understanding the Incarnation as Jesus being fully human, and thereby able to act in our stead, as a human being, doing that which none of us were able to do. When we comprehend his humanity in this way, we better understand his vicarious life and death as mediator, because he truly was acting out of the ontological depths of his being. So in the Incarnation, God comes to us as man, and thereby reconciles us to God through that humanity. I have no problem with this perspective, as it parallels my own perspective for the last 20 years. However, Torrance does tend to go further and were it not for Bill's comments here in this forum, I'm not sure I would have grasped how far he was going with this. One thing Torrance says concerning this vicarious work of Christ is in how he views Christ's baptism, as a baptism of vicarious repentance for us. My initial reaction to this is to ask, "so then if Christ was baptized unto repentance vicariously for us, does that mean that none of us need to be baptized unto repentance?" Also, "if Christ repented for us, and if he believed for us, then does that mean we do not need to repent and do not need to believe"? I know that you guys believe in both repentance and faith, so I must reconcile this by speculating that what you are really saying is that when we do repent and when we do have faith, it comes not from our own selves, but it is a manifestation of the operation of Christ within us. That sounds just fine... I have always looked at all goodness within me as coming from Christ and that without God, there can be no good. However, you seem to suggest that all of this is natural and applies to all men upon their being born into this world, whereas I see that our faith in the gospel as being makes this work of Christ a reality in our lives. I see one of the difficulties that Jesus faced with men was their lack of faith. He was always rebuking their unbelief and hardness of heart. Maybe I just need to chew on this some more and it will sink in. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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 promise kept.
One of my college math profs was named Grady Cantrell. From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] a promise kept. Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:15:37 -0400 Hi Judy. So your husband's name is Grady? I think this is the first time I have heard it. Thanks for sharing that with us. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] The Mediation of Christ
David: "difference semantic (only implied?)..at time more than that (semantic implied) What is your understanding of semantic? What is your understanding of syntax? How can a difference be more than semantic? I'm not being a "sa" David. I may be incorrectly understanding these two fundamental terms as they relate to all differences in all matters. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 10:08 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Hi Bill. > > I'm not sure there is much to disagree with your response, but yet it > does seem to me that our grasp of this issue is not identical. Perhaps > that will become more clear as our discussion progresses. > > When I read Torrance, I come away with a different perspective than you > do, but that is surely because I bring with me baggage from a different > background so that I perceive his terms and illustrations in a different > manner. At times it seems that our difference is a semantic one, but > then other times it seems like it is much more than that. For the time > being, I want to focus on semantics a little and get a better grasp of > the terms and understanding of terms that you use. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Another thing to keep in mind when reading Torrance > > is this: we are ontologically in Christ from birth > > via the go'el aspect of the atonement; but the gift > > of the Holy Spirit is received at the point of trusting > > in Jesus Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as > > repentance, sometimes as belief, sometimes as faith, > > sometimes as conversion. > > So in the theology of Torrance, repentance, belief, faith, and > conversion are all the same thing, or is there some distinction made > between these terms? > > Your characterization of the Anabaptist position toward Baptism did not > seem accurate to me. I think they were attempting to restore much of > the reality of what Torrance teaches, turning away from dead rituals > that have only an external form, but rather than distract from Torrance > and discuss that, I'm going to ignore that for now. > > I will say that I agree with Torrance's view of the sacraments, and have > for a very long time. The difficulties arise in how he seems to want to > marry certain tenets of Reformed theology with his correct view of the > Atonement and Incarnation. This gets especially problematic when we > consider how we should preach the gospel to sinners. Eventually, we > will be discussing these things, but for now, let's get back to > semantics and agree upon terms and definitions. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > The Gospel, then, calls for conversion, a fundamental > > change of mind, a radical departure from our former > > way of life. In other words, to believe the Gospel > > is to convert. BUT "conversion" is not what saves us. > > To convert is simply to align ourselves with the truth > > and reality of him who does save us: Jesus Christ. > > I can agree with what you say here, as I preach the gospel in this > fashion, declaring the good news, and persuading men to repent of their > sin and obey the gospel. Something still seems odd here, perhaps in > your phrase, "conversion is not what saves us." I don't think I have > ever taught that conversion saves us, or even thought of it that way. > Yet, you seem compelled to raise this point and I'm not sure why. > > I still have problems with the idea that everyone is born into Christ at > physical birth. Torrance himself says on page 67, "That 'great > mystery', as St. Paul described it, of the union between Christ and his > Church is primarily and essentially corporate in nature, but it applies > to all individual members of his Body WHO ARE INGRAFTED INTO CHRIST BY > BAPTISM and continue to live in union with him as they feed upon his > body and blood in Holy Communion." > > Here he says that they are ingrafted into Christ by baptism. How do we > reconcile that with the idea of being born into Christ at physical birth > BEFORE baptism? > > Maybe part of my problem is understanding how someone can be IN Christ > and yet not be in relationship with Christ. For me, that would be like > Jesus saying that he and the Father are one, yet they are not in > relationship with one another. Impossible. To be IN CHRIST surely > means to be in relationship with Christ, does it not? > > You seem to be saying that everyone is already in Christ but don't > realize it, and so when they realize it, then they are putting faith in > Christ and they experience the reality of what has always been. This > sounds like you are saying that the relationship was always there but > not recognized and experienced? ?? Maybe you can help me understand you > better, because I clearly do not seem to be understanding you. > > Again, my perspective regarding the Incarnation and the Atonement is > very much the same, as a work already done and accomplished, but I see > faith as t
RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women--JUDY SPREADS MANURE
Perry, If Elsman was being funny, it worked--it cracked me up. :-) Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women--JUDY SPREADS MANURE Izzy, recall my comment on his humor escaping many? You response is a case in point. >From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women--JUDY SPREADS MANURE >Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:53:54 -0500 > >Perry, I wasn't "offended" either--it just seemed humorous to me that >Elsman thought the word mixture was supposed to be manure. Where did he >get >that idea? LOL! Izzy > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke >Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:03 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women--JUDY SPREADS MANURE > >Izzy, this is the second or third time you have responded to Jim by >referencing the men's room. You seem to be the only one dwelling on this. >And I must say, I was not offended by the word manure, compared to how he >used to say it! > >Perry, not as the moderator. > >PS. I like Jim's personal style of almost always adding a PS. And I have >come to appreciate his subtle humor, which I think escapes many. > > > >From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women--JUDY SPREADS MANURE > >Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:42:47 -0500 > > > >Elsman, You need to spend less time in the Men's Room. Izzy > > > > _ > > > >THIS HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD DAY FOR YOU. DID YOU MEAN TO SAY: > >".NOR IS IT IN ANY MAN WHO IS FULL OF MANURE"? > >THAT IS THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION THAT MAKES SENSE. A FREUDIAN SLIP, EH? > >--ROTFWL > > >-- >"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] Resources
Pardon me if I just opt out until you to all sort it out and come to a consensus. Then you can kindly report the results to the rest of us. J Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Resources See www.regentbookstore.com/. & www.perichoresis.org/ for print and audio related to the conversation on the relation of the Incarnation to the Atonement. Lectures on CD by TFT are available from Regent. Blessings, Lance
RE: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
You’ve got my vote (for what it’s worth) Terry. I already prayed for your safe and wonderful trip while walking Lacey to Forest Park this morning. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] a promise kept. David Miller wrote: Have a great trip, Terry. We will keep you in prayer. You are ablessing to us. That is about the nicest thing anyone ever said about me, but I am not certain that you could get a majority vote on it. Thanks for the comment and the prayers. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Hubert --HOUNDOG LIVED , TO DIE OF CONSTIPATION--CAVEAT JUDY!!
---ELSMAN P.S. OH, YOU EXPECT SOME SCAT? ELVIS DIED ON A TOILET, STRAINING AWAY..CHECK IT OUT. HIS DRUGS CAUSED CONSTIPATION, WHICH MANY HEREON ARE AFFLICTED BY, TO THEIR FRUSTRATION. THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF CONSTIPATIONINCLUDING EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL, WHICH MAKE MANY WOMEN JUST PLAIN "CHIPPY". N.B. THAT THE MODERATOR GETS A TICKLE FROM MY "P.S." NOTES, SO EXPECT MORE OF THEM. Oh, dear. Must they all originate from the same place? Can’t you hang out in the kitchen for a while Elsman? Go for the prunes. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists
My computer was attacked by that sasser virus and I missed a bunch of mail, gone forever because of hotmail account limitations. Regarding the SDAs. I have been fellowshipping among them for a couple of years now as a guest. There are wonderful people there. The group as a whole is healthy enough to assimilate some diversity without crumbling. I have decided to put some space between them and myself and family for a time. A conflict arose over appropriate forms of music and I do not want to be the one telling them what is right more than I have already done. There are conservative views that date back to the thoughts of Ellen White that are not even part of some of the official guidelines, guidelines currently under revision. The following web site is helpful for an insight into past developments that have led up to current stands. Conflicts can arise from unstated beliefs that are passed down through generations of members. http://www.isitso.org/guide/sda.html Marlin - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Good attitude, John. Ive not looked into Adventists because Ive had friends in the past warn me against it, and I dont think my husband would be interested, as he loves our non-D church. But Ive read some very favorable things about how healthy they are due to their beliefs in keeping OT dietary laws. Are you Adventist? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 9:02 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Just to clarify:The Adventist church in most communities I am aware of, is accepted by most of the other churches as part of the larger Christian community. One of the local radio stations is a Christian music station run by the Adventist church. It features announcements from all Christian churches, and has advertisement from across the board. In time, it's doctrine of exclusion will be completely gone. The folks I know are great people, claiming the name of Jesus. I am not aware that correct doctrinal thinking is a requirement for salvation. Community among believers is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Many in TT share this sense of community. Peace outJohn Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Lance wrote: > What is your understanding of semantic? The word "semantic" refers to the meaning of words. Sometimes a person might say the same thing but use different words. For example, someone might say, "that was really Great!" Another person might say, "No, that was really Excellent!" They both might be trying to communicate identical concepts, but the words they use are different and might have different meanings for each of them. Lance wrote: > What is your understanding of syntax? The word "syntax" refers to how words are organized and arranged into phrases and sentences to communicate an idea. Lance wrote: > How can a difference be more than semantic? Easy. Sometimes people really mean to communicate something different. For example, if I was to describe gravity as a force between objects that have mass, that would be different than describing gravity as a path in space which objects tend to follow. This difference is what lies at the heart of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. According to the Newtonian viewpoint, light would not be effected by gravity because it has no mass. On the other hand, Einstein's model predicts that gravity effects light too. In regards to theology, some might talk about righteousness as a legal standing with God, whereas someone else might see righteousness as being more than that, as indicating a virtue within the heart of man. The latter concept sees righteousness as a thing having existence within man, whereas the former sees righteousness as something external to man, something which only effects God's view of man regardless of man's actual state of being. In this case, there is a semantic component of defining the word "righteousness" but there is more than that. There is an actual difference in perspective of the truth being discussed. There is a difference in the actual apprehension of reality and not just in what words are used to communicate that understanding. If I were to say that an argument is primarily semantic, it would mean that the persons discussing the subject perceive the actual truth in the same way, but they differ in the words they use to describe that truth. If an argument is more than just semantics, then it means that the opposing viewpoints substantially differ in their actual comprehension of the truth and not just in what words they choose to use to convey that understanding. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP
In a message dated 5/11/2004 12:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, If Elsman was being funny, it worked--it cracked me up. :-) Izzy PERRY, DON'T TRUST HERSHE CAN TURN ON A MAN IN A NEW YORK SECOND. SHE HAS AT LEAST 3 PERSONAS, AND EVEN THIS FRIENDLY PERSONA IS WHAT I CALL THE "SUBJUNCTIVE TENSE" PERSONA-NOTICE THE "IF". AND, WE KNOW SHE IS "TENSE." SHE REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, WHEREIN A GIRL IS ASKED TO SPELL "WATER": SHE SAYS TO HER TEACHER: "HIJKLMNO". THE ASTOUNDED TEACHER SAYS: "WHAT? YOU ARE A NUTCASE!!" THE GIRL RESPONDS: "YES THAT SPELLS WATER. IT HAS ALL THE LETTERS FROM "H" TO "O". ELSMANSTEIN, THE CHAUVINIST SCHWEIN P.S. HOWEVER , IN THESE BATTLES OF THE SEXES, I AM COMFORTED BY THIS GUIDING TRUISM: "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE FALSE!"
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
David: "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." Agree/Disagree? In all communication success is determined by an overlap of meaning (semantics). No overlap, no communication. PS: For shame on all of us for communicating in such a way as to prompt Izzy to drop out 'til we're done.CSLewis supposedly said something to the effect that: If you can't successfully communicate your meaning to a 12 yr old (no, Izzy I don't mean you) it may be the case that you don't know what you're talking about. I actually though the two illustrations (smiling & Jesus) sort of made this point. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 12:32 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of semantic? > > The word "semantic" refers to the meaning of words. Sometimes a person > might say the same thing but use different words. For example, someone > might say, "that was really Great!" Another person might say, "No, that > was really Excellent!" They both might be trying to communicate > identical concepts, but the words they use are different and might have > different meanings for each of them. > > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of syntax? > > The word "syntax" refers to how words are organized and arranged into > phrases and sentences to communicate an idea. > > Lance wrote: > > How can a difference be more than semantic? > > Easy. Sometimes people really mean to communicate something different. > > For example, if I was to describe gravity as a force between objects > that have mass, that would be different than describing gravity as a > path in space which objects tend to follow. This difference is what > lies at the heart of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. > According to the Newtonian viewpoint, light would not be effected by > gravity because it has no mass. On the other hand, Einstein's model > predicts that gravity effects light too. > > In regards to theology, some might talk about righteousness as a legal > standing with God, whereas someone else might see righteousness as being > more than that, as indicating a virtue within the heart of man. The > latter concept sees righteousness as a thing having existence within > man, whereas the former sees righteousness as something external to man, > something which only effects God's view of man regardless of man's > actual state of being. In this case, there is a semantic component of > defining the word "righteousness" but there is more than that. There is > an actual difference in perspective of the truth being discussed. There > is a difference in the actual apprehension of reality and not just in > what words are used to communicate that understanding. > > If I were to say that an argument is primarily semantic, it would mean > that the persons discussing the subject perceive the actual truth in the > same way, but they differ in the words they use to describe that truth. > If an argument is more than just semantics, then it means that the > opposing viewpoints substantially differ in their actual comprehension > of the truth and not just in what words they choose to use to convey > that understanding. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP
Elsmanstein: Are you up to speed on the Mediation of Christ "conversation". I, for one, would like to know your thoughts. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 11, 2004 12:36 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP In a message dated 5/11/2004 12:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, If Elsman was being funny, it worked--it cracked me up. :-) IzzyPERRY, DON'T TRUST HERSHE CAN TURN ON A MAN IN A NEW YORK SECOND. SHE HAS AT LEAST 3 PERSONAS, AND EVEN THIS FRIENDLY PERSONA IS WHAT I CALL THE "SUBJUNCTIVE TENSE" PERSONA-NOTICE THE "IF". AND, WE KNOW SHE IS "TENSE." SHE REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, WHEREIN A GIRL IS ASKED TO SPELL "WATER": SHE SAYS TO HER TEACHER: "HIJKLMNO". THE ASTOUNDED TEACHER SAYS: "WHAT? YOU ARE A NUTCASE!!" THE GIRL RESPONDS: "YES THAT SPELLS WATER. IT HAS ALL THE LETTERS FROM "H" TO "O". ELSMANSTEIN, THE CHAUVINIST SCHWEINP.S. HOWEVER , IN THESE BATTLES OF THE SEXES, I AM COMFORTED BY THIS GUIDING TRUISM: "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE FALSE!"
Re: [TruthTalk]MEDIATION, MEDITATION, SANCTIFICATION??
In a message dated 5/11/2004 12:51:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Elsmanstein: Are you up to speed on the Mediation of Christ "conversation". I, for one, would like to know your thoughts. Lance LANCE, I DON'T DO BOOKS BY MERE MEN. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS WELL ABLE TO TEACH ME THEOLOGY, SINCE HE BREATHED INTO THE SCRIPTURES. IN FACT, IT BORES ME TO READ MERE HUMANS POSTING ON THESE DEEP TOPICS, THOUGH I HAVE , ADMITTEDLY, PRINTED ONE OR TWO GREAT ONES BY OUR RESIDENT SCHOLAR, DAVID MILLER. ---ELSMANSTEIN THE NARROW-MINDED & UNREAD HARVARD/ MICHIGAN LAWYER P.S. THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS AN "HE" THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT JOHN 14:16, BUT SOME OF THESE WOMEN ON HERE MAY BE INTO "REVISIONISM" OF THE GIRLIE SORT.
RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists
The website looks very interesting,Marlin. It’s good to know the background on SDAs. It’s always good to hear from you. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlin halverson Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists My computer was attacked by that sasser virus and I missed a bunch of mail, gone forever because of hotmail account limitations. Regarding the SDAs. I have been fellowshipping among them for a couple of years now as a guest. There are wonderful people there. The group as a whole is healthy enough to assimilate some diversity without crumbling. I have decided to put some space between them and myself and family for a time. A conflict arose over appropriate forms of music and I do not want to be the one telling them what is right more than I have already done. There are conservative views that date back to the thoughts of Ellen White that are not even part of some of the official guidelines, guidelines currently under revision. The following web site is helpful for an insight into past developments that have led up to current stands. Conflicts can arise from unstated beliefs that are passed down through generations of members. http://www.isitso.org/guide/sda.html Marlin - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Good attitude, John. I’ve not looked into Adventists because I’ve had friends in the past warn me against it, and I don’t think my husband would be interested, as he loves our non-D church. But I’ve read some very favorable things about how healthy they are due to their beliefs in keeping OT dietary laws. Are you Adventist? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 9:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 7th Day Adventists Just to clarify: The Adventist church in most communities I am aware of, is accepted by most of the other churches as part of the larger Christian community. One of the local radio stations is a Christian music station run by the Adventist church. It features announcements from all Christian churches, and has advertisement from across the board. In time, it's doctrine of exclusion will be completely gone. The folks I know are great people, claiming the name of Jesus. I am not aware that correct doctrinal thinking is a requirement for salvation. Community among believers is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged. Many in TT share this sense of community. Peace out John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP
Elsman, from your heading I can’t tell if you intended to malign Judy of me. Either way, enjoy yourself. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP In a message dated 5/11/2004 12:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, If Elsman was being funny, it worked--it cracked me up. :-) Izzy PERRY, DON'T TRUST HERSHE CAN TURN ON A MAN IN A NEW YORK SECOND. SHE HAS AT LEAST 3 PERSONAS, AND EVEN THIS FRIENDLY PERSONA IS WHAT I CALL THE "SUBJUNCTIVE TENSE" PERSONA-NOTICE THE "IF". AND, WE KNOW SHE IS "TENSE." SHE REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, WHEREIN A GIRL IS ASKED TO SPELL "WATER": SHE SAYS TO HER TEACHER: "HIJKLMNO". THE ASTOUNDED TEACHER SAYS: "WHAT? YOU ARE A NUTCASE!!" THE GIRL RESPONDS: "YES THAT SPELLS WATER. IT HAS ALL THE LETTERS FROM "H" TO "O". ELSMANSTEIN, THE CHAUVINIST SCHWEIN P.S. HOWEVER , IN THESE BATTLES OF THE SEXES, I AM COMFORTED BY THIS GUIDING TRUISM: "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE FALSE!"
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Don't feel bad, Lance. It's not that I'm 12 yrs old. It's just that I'm a female. :-) I'd rather spend my time quilting while you fellas come up with a consensus for the rest of us. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ David: "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." Agree/Disagree? In all communication success is determined by an overlap of meaning (semantics). No overlap, no communication. PS: For shame on all of us for communicating in such a way as to prompt Izzy to drop out 'til we're done.CSLewis supposedly said something to the effect that: If you can't successfully communicate your meaning to a 12 yr old (no, Izzy I don't mean you) it may be the case that you don't know what you're talking about. I actually though the two illustrations (smiling & Jesus) sort of made this point. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 12:32 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of semantic? > > The word "semantic" refers to the meaning of words. Sometimes a person > might say the same thing but use different words. For example, someone > might say, "that was really Great!" Another person might say, "No, that > was really Excellent!" They both might be trying to communicate > identical concepts, but the words they use are different and might have > different meanings for each of them. > > Lance wrote: > > What is your understanding of syntax? > > The word "syntax" refers to how words are organized and arranged into > phrases and sentences to communicate an idea. > > Lance wrote: > > How can a difference be more than semantic? > > Easy. Sometimes people really mean to communicate something different. > > For example, if I was to describe gravity as a force between objects > that have mass, that would be different than describing gravity as a > path in space which objects tend to follow. This difference is what > lies at the heart of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. > According to the Newtonian viewpoint, light would not be effected by > gravity because it has no mass. On the other hand, Einstein's model > predicts that gravity effects light too. > > In regards to theology, some might talk about righteousness as a legal > standing with God, whereas someone else might see righteousness as being > more than that, as indicating a virtue within the heart of man. The > latter concept sees righteousness as a thing having existence within > man, whereas the former sees righteousness as something external to man, > something which only effects God's view of man regardless of man's > actual state of being. In this case, there is a semantic component of > defining the word "righteousness" but there is more than that. There is > an actual difference in perspective of the truth being discussed. There > is a difference in the actual apprehension of reality and not just in > what words are used to communicate that understanding. > > If I were to say that an argument is primarily semantic, it would mean > that the persons discussing the subject perceive the actual truth in the > same way, but they differ in the words they use to describe that truth. > If an argument is more than just semantics, then it means that the > opposing viewpoints substantially differ in their actual comprehension > of the truth and not just in what words they choose to use to convey > that understanding. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP
Correction: Judy OR me. Duh. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP Elsman, from your heading I can’t tell if you intended to malign Judy of me. Either way, enjoy yourself. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP In a message dated 5/11/2004 12:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, If Elsman was being funny, it worked--it cracked me up. :-) Izzy PERRY, DON'T TRUST HERSHE CAN TURN ON A MAN IN A NEW YORK SECOND. SHE HAS AT LEAST 3 PERSONAS, AND EVEN THIS FRIENDLY PERSONA IS WHAT I CALL THE "SUBJUNCTIVE TENSE" PERSONA-NOTICE THE "IF". AND, WE KNOW SHE IS "TENSE." SHE REMINDS ME OF THE STORY, WHEREIN A GIRL IS ASKED TO SPELL "WATER": SHE SAYS TO HER TEACHER: "HIJKLMNO". THE ASTOUNDED TEACHER SAYS: "WHAT? YOU ARE A NUTCASE!!" THE GIRL RESPONDS: "YES THAT SPELLS WATER. IT HAS ALL THE LETTERS FROM "H" TO "O". ELSMANSTEIN, THE CHAUVINIST SCHWEIN P.S. HOWEVER , IN THESE BATTLES OF THE SEXES, I AM COMFORTED BY THIS GUIDING TRUISM: "ALL GENERALIZATIONS ARE FALSE!"
Re: [TruthTalk]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP--IZZY ITCHES
In a message dated 5/11/2004 1:24:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Elsman, from your heading I canât tell if you intended to malign Judy of me. Either way, enjoy yourself. Izzy I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT PERSONALLY, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PERSONALITY. CHIP. CHIP. JIM P.S. KEEP IN MIND THAT I DON'T KNOW ANYONE BY FACE OR PERSONAREALLY. ALL WOMEN ARE THE SAME.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Izzy: I'd really appreciate it if you didn't "play" to this stereotype. You write well. I looked through your book. I read your description of the time the two of you had at the park.Izzy, you say important things well and with more warmth than most. At least read while quilting. Remember what I said: Women live theology while men speak of it. This so-called "conversation" is about Jesus. I already know He matters to you more than anyone or anything. I believe that when He came to this earth to become one of us He then proceded to redeem us as a man empowered by the Spirit of God. I believe that it is as a man, empowered by the Spirit, that He overcame Satan, sin, sickness and death. This same Spirit that empowered Jesus empowers us. Is this essentially what you believe? Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 13:25 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Don't feel bad, Lance. It's not that I'm 12 yrs old. It's just that I'm a > female. :-) I'd rather spend my time quilting while you fellas come up with > a consensus for the rest of us. Izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > > David: "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." Agree/Disagree? In all > communication success is determined by an overlap of meaning (semantics). No > overlap, no communication. > PS: For shame on all of us for communicating in such a way as to prompt Izzy > to drop out 'til we're done.CSLewis supposedly said something to the effect > that: If you can't successfully communicate your meaning to a 12 yr old (no, > Izzy I don't mean you) it may be the case that you don't know what you're > talking about. I actually though the two illustrations (smiling & Jesus) > sort of made this point. Blessings, Lance > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: May 11, 2004 12:32 > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > > > > Lance wrote: > > > What is your understanding of semantic? > > > > The word "semantic" refers to the meaning of words. Sometimes a person > > might say the same thing but use different words. For example, someone > > might say, "that was really Great!" Another person might say, "No, that > > was really Excellent!" They both might be trying to communicate > > identical concepts, but the words they use are different and might have > > different meanings for each of them. > > > > Lance wrote: > > > What is your understanding of syntax? > > > > The word "syntax" refers to how words are organized and arranged into > > phrases and sentences to communicate an idea. > > > > Lance wrote: > > > How can a difference be more than semantic? > > > > Easy. Sometimes people really mean to communicate something different. > > > > For example, if I was to describe gravity as a force between objects > > that have mass, that would be different than describing gravity as a > > path in space which objects tend to follow. This difference is what > > lies at the heart of Newtonian physics versus Einsteinian physics. > > According to the Newtonian viewpoint, light would not be effected by > > gravity because it has no mass. On the other hand, Einstein's model > > predicts that gravity effects light too. > > > > In regards to theology, some might talk about righteousness as a legal > > standing with God, whereas someone else might see righteousness as being > > more than that, as indicating a virtue within the heart of man. The > > latter concept sees righteousness as a thing having existence within > > man, whereas the former sees righteousness as something external to man, > > something which only effects God's view of man regardless of man's > > actual state of being. In this case, there is a semantic component of > > defining the word "righteousness" but there is more than that. There is > > an actual difference in perspective of the truth being discussed. There > > is a difference in the actual apprehension of reality and not just in > > what words are used to communicate that understanding. > > > > If I were to say that an argument is primarily semantic, it would mean > > that the persons discussing the subject perceive the actual truth in the > > same way, but they differ in the words they use to describe that truth. > > If an argument is more than just semantics, then it means that the > > opposing viewpoints substantially differ in their actual comprehension > > of the truth and not just in what words they choose to use to convey > > that understanding. > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > > > -- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (C
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Lance wrote: > "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." > Agree/Disagree? I don't understand your statement here because of invalid syntax. :-) LOL. Does my statement give you a hint about how I will answer you? Syntactic is an adjective, and syntactics is not really a word, so maybe you meant to use the noun syntax instead of syntactics? Also, "it's" means "it is" and does not indicate possessiveness, but I think that perhaps you meant to indicate possessiveness. So now I must begin to speculate upon what you were trying to say and answer accordingly. If you meant syntax, I would disagree with the statement. Some language phrases carry a different meaning based upon word order (syntax). In other words, syntax conveys meaning itself. For example, if I were to say, "my dog blue is happy" you might understand that blue is the name of my dog who has a pleasant disposition, but if I said, "my dog happy is blue," then you would understand something different, that happy is the name of my dog. Interestingly, you might notice that you could not tell whether I meant to communicate whether the dog is sad or whether the dog is actually blue in color without context or some additional definition from me, the author. Another example might be found by examining more simple languages such as that used in computer programming. Some programming languages have an end of statement character that carries a very specific meaning. This is syntax. For example, in PASCAL, if you leave off the semi-colon at the end of the statement, the program will not be understood by the compiler and it will not compile. Clearly, in this case, syntax has its own semantic (meaning). Even in the sentence you wrote above, the rules of syntax suggests you miscommunicated in that "it's" means "it is" and the proper possessive form that you probably meant to use is "its." Now I might overlook your violation of this rule of syntax and infer your real meaning despite your actual word, but that would not mean that syntax itself does not have its own meaning (semantic). It would mean that I was ignoring the meaning conveyed through syntax alone in order to speculate about what you were actually trying to communicate. Do my comments help any? I am not sure where you are going with this. :-) I'm just playing along, expecting some kind of gotcha at some point. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] The Mediation of Christ
David: You're too clever for words, NOT. Here's the full quote: " "Certainly the Godelian theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics." Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't. Blessings, Lance From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 14:33 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ > Lance wrote: > > "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." > > Agree/Disagree? > > I don't understand your statement here because of invalid syntax. :-) > LOL. Does my statement give you a hint about how I will answer you? > > Syntactic is an adjective, and syntactics is not really a word, so maybe > you meant to use the noun syntax instead of syntactics? Also, "it's" > means "it is" and does not indicate possessiveness, but I think that > perhaps you meant to indicate possessiveness. So now I must begin to > speculate upon what you were trying to say and answer accordingly. > > If you meant syntax, I would disagree with the statement. Some language > phrases carry a different meaning based upon word order (syntax). In > other words, syntax conveys meaning itself. For example, if I were to > say, "my dog blue is happy" you might understand that blue is the name > of my dog who has a pleasant disposition, but if I said, "my dog happy > is blue," then you would understand something different, that happy is > the name of my dog. Interestingly, you might notice that you could not > tell whether I meant to communicate whether the dog is sad or whether > the dog is actually blue in color without context or some additional > definition from me, the author. > > Another example might be found by examining more simple languages such > as that used in computer programming. Some programming languages have > an end of statement character that carries a very specific meaning. > This is syntax. For example, in PASCAL, if you leave off the semi-colon > at the end of the statement, the program will not be understood by the > compiler and it will not compile. Clearly, in this case, syntax has its > own semantic (meaning). > > Even in the sentence you wrote above, the rules of syntax suggests you > miscommunicated in that "it's" means "it is" and the proper possessive > form that you probably meant to use is "its." Now I might overlook your > violation of this rule of syntax and infer your real meaning despite > your actual word, but that would not mean that syntax itself does not > have its own meaning (semantic). It would mean that I was ignoring the > meaning conveyed through syntax alone in order to speculate about what > you were actually trying to communicate. > > Do my comments help any? I am not sure where you are going with this. > :-) I'm just playing along, expecting some kind of gotcha at some > point. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > -- > "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]JUDY ADMITS TO CRACKING UP--IZZY ITCHES
Actually, it doesn’t bother me a bit, as that is what I assumed. And you have no idea about my personality, I think. BTW, Elsman, do you have any hobbies or interests (other than picking on defenseless women)? J I can’t imagine what a person such as yourself does for fun. Izzy I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT PERSONALLY, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PERSONALITY. CHIP. CHIP. JIM P.S. KEEP IN MIND THAT I DON'T KNOW ANYONE BY FACE OR PERSONAREALLY. ALL WOMEN ARE THE SAME.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
Lance wrote: > Here's the full quote: "Certainly the Godelian > theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive > system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic > system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics." > Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics > were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't. I don't consider syntax and semantics to be the same thing, so I'm not sure why you would say that such is necessary for me to be home free. You mentioned Godel, a mathematician who has stirred a lot of debate, so I searched further about this word "syntactics." It is a specialized term not in my dictionary, but I did find a definition indicating that it does not have the same meaning as syntax. Syntactics is a SINGULAR NOUN and should not be confused with the word SYNTACTIC, an adjective relating to syntax. Syntactics refers to the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of symbol systems. My comments might not apply because I assumed you meant syntax instead of syntactics, a word that was unknown to me at the time I read your statement. Therefore, please explain this statement this statement for us. What exactly does it mean? If you believe the statement to be true, certainly you can make the case for us. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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] The Mediation of Christ
-Original Message- Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ Izzy: I'd really appreciate it if you didn't "play" to this stereotype. You write well. I looked through your book. I read your description of the time the two of you had at the park.Izzy, you say important things well and with more warmth than most. At least read while quilting. Remember what I said: Women live theology while men speak of it. This so-called "conversation" is about Jesus. I already know He matters to you more than anyone or anything. I believe that when He came to this earth to become one of us He then proceded to redeem us as a man empowered by the Spirit of God. I believe that it is as a man, empowered by the Spirit, that He overcame Satan, sin, sickness and death. This same Spirit that empowered Jesus empowers us. Is this essentially what you believe? Blessings, Lance Lance, I know you will be disappointed in me, but when you guys get into these fascinating nitpicking sessions about what came first, the chicken or the egg, and what is the meaning of the meaning of the meaning, etc., my eyes just glaze over. I know you can’t imagine not finding all that extremely interesting, but that’s the way it is for me—sorry! Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks. As for your question, though, yes I agree with what you say above. I’m so sure of all that that I don’t even feel the need to research it further. I even believe He overcame sin so much that it is a dead issue for Believers. We don’t have to do it any more, and have no excuse if we do. (Especially, “But everybody does it!”) I really like your quote, Lance, that “Women live theology while men speak of it.” What I wish to do is live it out, rather than study about it. Part of that is through my creativity: writing, quilting, homemaking, gardening, volunteer work, and enjoying my family, friends, animals, and nature. I believe that by rubbing elbows with my neighbors, friends, and family I can be a real life Ambassador for Christ in the world. All I do or create can reflect Him. The smaller and less “important” it is, the better. A well-tended garden is a true thing of beauty in God’s economy. What ever we touch should shine for Him. I believe in living out the Proverbs 31 woman every day. Even while jesting with Elsman and you all on TT. (TT would really get boring if there was no one to tease! Someone as prickly as Elsman is a rare opportunity!) Izzy PS You can’t read while quilting! (But you can listen to music.) PPS Here is what my son (with the Grandbabies) wrote inside my mother’s day card: “Thank you for teaching me to desire things of eternal value. Your wisdom, generosity, and personal holiness have greatly blessed me and my family. Rejoice as you witness the fruit of your obedience and faithfulness multiplied to future generations!” Now that is what being a Proverbs 31 woman is all about! Praise the Lord, who makes ordinary lives, doing ordinary things for Him, count for eternity!!!
