Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 11:07:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Wright does not believe it came from Gamaliel." Then I would want to go with Wright -- or, before disagreeing with him, have my quackers in a row. I'm thrilled that you are enjoying Wright. He is definitely the New Testament -- and especially Pauline -- scholar of record these days. Not everybody loves him, but those who don't still have to wrestle with him if they want to be considered serious scholars of NT studies. Bill Yes . and let's see --- 11, 12, 1 -- no 12 am !!! Hit the hay cowboy. I am definitely on the Wright track which is better than being Right on politics. The guy is great. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
"Wright does not believe it came from Gamaliel." Then I would want to go with Wright -- or, before disagreeing with him, have my quackers in a row. I'm thrilled that you are enjoying Wright. He is definitely the New Testament -- and especially Pauline -- scholar of record these days. Not everybody loves him, but those who don't still have to wrestle with him if they want to be considered serious scholars of NT studies. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:58:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Bill writes: Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"BillWright does not believe it came from Gamaliel.J
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 10:33:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: isthisquestionfromasemiticpointofvieworwestern consideringthedepthofgamalielsunderstandingof yeshuaandhisfollowersiwanttosayyesithinksobutof coursethatsbecauseiwanttohopegamalielwassaved insomethingresemblingwhatwejointlyunderstand savedtomean jeffthewishfulphilosopher Explain the difference and answer from each point of view. Sounds interesting. (Keep it short or I may go blind during the translation period). John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
In a message dated 12/4/2004 10:10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: excusememrcommentatorwasthatsupposedtobesixorsexisitpossiblethattheoriginalauthormayhavemisspeeled somethingontheotherhandifitissexyouthwhydidinotknowofitinmyyouth jeffprayformeasiamgettingverynaughtywiththis psbetteryetmaybesomeoneshouldgetoutthepaddleandspankme Jeff -- you are starting to worry me. J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
In a message dated 12/4/2004 9:54:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: youmightsaythatontheotherhanditsgreattoseethatsomeoneistryingtodeciphertextandfindmeaningto thejumblehoweverthisisnoteasyasihavetoperformmyownspellcheckthetranslatingisuptoyou jeff - Original Message - I must rest, now. It looks as though my work has just begun. Night night John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
:>) Me too. - Original Message - From: Jeff Powers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag isthisquestionfromasemiticpointofvieworwestern consideringthedepthofgamalielsunderstandingof yeshuaandhisfollowersiwanttosayyesithinksobutof coursethatsbecauseiwanttohopegamalielwassaved insomethingresemblingwhatwejointlyunderstand savedtomean jeffthewishfulphilosopher - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 21:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, BillSlade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
jeff in something of a normal mode. Izzy what evidence do you use to support your idea that Gamaliel rejected Yeshua? I cannot find it! If anything, Gamaliel supported Yeshua and the Way. jeff - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 22:12 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag I know Im going to regret asking the obvious question here, but Bill, how does one have the possibility of being saved if he has rejected his Lord and Savior? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, Bill Slade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
isthisquestionfromasemiticpointofvieworwestern consideringthedepthofgamalielsunderstandingof yeshuaandhisfollowersiwanttosayyesithinksobutof coursethatsbecauseiwanttohopegamalielwassaved insomethingresemblingwhatwejointlyunderstand savedtomean jeffthewishfulphilosopher - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 21:54 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, BillSlade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
excusememrcommentatorwasthatsupposedtobesixorsexisitpossiblethattheoriginalauthormayhavemisspeeled somethingontheotherhandifitissexyouthwhydidinotknowofitinmyyouth jeffprayformeasiamgettingverynaughtywiththis psbetteryetmaybesomeoneshouldgetoutthepaddleandspankme - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 23:17 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup Original [Greekified] Text: Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy. Translation: Six Youh Ave.: no[n]sense of Hum or Izzy. Commentary: Six Youh Ave: Quite naturally, the author is telling about the inhabitants of a specific location on some God-forsaken street in a city called Olympic Torch. No[n]sense of Hum: Unfortunately, the rest of the text is not extant, so we do not know if the nonsensical hum is a proper noun (i.e., the name of an individual), the unrelenting noise of an Air Conditioning unit, or even the resonance of the Taos Hum. Or Izzy: However, it is apparent that Izzy can only refer to the father of the blue Whatizit animated blobs (cf. http://www.moerk.org/izzy/IZZY.AVI). -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamilySubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
izzyihaveaverywarpedsenseofhumorthatmaybethereasonforallthis ontheotherhandimaybetestingyalltoseewhohassomekindofskillat translatingdifficulttextsintothecommontonguewhileretaining theintentandcontextoftheoriginalshallinowbeginpostingingreek jeffthesickandtwistedhumorist - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 21:55 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:48 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup izzythanksfortheadviceithasbeennotedhoweverthishasnotbeenaproblem oneiliketobehonestfromthestarttwoifiwastotryinternetdatingiwoulnot changeathingthreeihavenoproblemgettingadatefourtakemeforwhoiam orsaygoodbyeitreallydoesnotmattertomeiseethebeautyinsidethecup nothingelseexceptgodmattersfivethatsthewayithastobeorgoodbye jeffthefreak - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 17:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup -Original Message- iamtattooedpiercedwithfiveearringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight jeff Jeff, thats all fine and good with me, but take my advice and keep It to yourself when it comes to internet dating. J Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
youmightsaythatontheotherhanditsgreattoseethatsomeoneistryingtodeciphertextandfindmeaningto thejumblehoweverthisisnoteasyasihavetoperformmyownspellcheckthetranslatingisuptoyou jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 21:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup In a message dated 12/4/2004 5:20:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reading these emails of your, Jeff, is like reading the original texts of the Greek Papyri... no punctuation or spaces.Obviously, Jeff, in his own devious way, has found the perfect counter to effective spell check.JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
"And do you want to talk about the courage of your
convictions? Stand up in the Coliseum, as many a Christian did, and cry out
"This is wrong," knowing that in the very act you will surely be
the next to be fed to the lions. No! To love your enemy is not to
rebel against his authority but to wage war in a transformative way
..."
Editor's (and author's) note: The "No!" here is a
no to REBELLION against governing authorities (looking forward to my next
statement), and not a no to the godly witness of those brave Christians who
spoke out against the depravity of the Coliseum.
Sorry for any confusion I may have inadvertently
caused.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Bill Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 4:17
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the
Flag
David, you assert that Jesus' words in Matthew
5.39 ("But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on
your right cheek, turn the other to him also") do not apply in our discussion
concerning submitting to governing authorities. I would like to point out to
you (for the sake of any readers who may be half-heartedly following this
thread) that I have not yet claimed that they did. I shall be
asking you a couple questions (below) as to why you even chose to point
this out. But first I would like to direct your attention to another statement
from our Lord in the same discourse, where I believe Jesus is very much
speaking to the kind of citizens-in-submission-to-government relations that we
are discussing here in our disagreement over the American Revolution. In
fact, you can find his statement only two verses after he commands his hearers
to turn the other cheek: "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him
two" (v. 41).
What does Jesus mean when he says if someone
compels you to go one mile, go with him two? He is speaking about the Roman
law which stated that citizens of a Roman province, if requested to, had to
carry a soldier's gear -- or in some other way go into his
service -- for up to one mile. This practice was called
angariaverit, from a word of Persian origin meaning
"impressment of service." In Persia there were public couriers stationed by
the King of Persia at fixed locations, with horses ready for use, to send
royal messages from one station to another. If a Persian citizen (male) was
passing by such a post-station, these couriers had the authority to rush out
and compel the citizen to ride back to another station to do an errand for the
king. Angariaverit found its way in various forms into
Roman law. This is the law which compelled Simon of Cyrene
to carry the cross of Christ (Mat 27:32).
The Jews hated this law for several
reasons: 1) It was very degrading to them. After the Exodus and
their return from Exile, and the freedom from captivity which both
brought, the Jews were quite reluctant to yield their rights once again
to yet another foreign power, especially when it was in their own homeland
that they were required to do so! 2) It presented a major inconvenience. When
angariaverit was called, it meant that the Jew had to suspend
whatever he was doing, to do that which was requested of him -- and this again
to serve a "foreign" ruler, the status of whom many Jews refused to
acknowledge. 3) It was brutal. The Roman guard often exploited their authority
by whipping and prodding their already shamed Jewish servants to "move it
along." And 4) it presented a logistical problem. Even when his
angariaverit was finished, the Jew still had a mile to travel,
whipped and bruised, on tired and sore feet, to get back to whatever it was he
had been doing.
By the way, the Latin root for our word
"anger" finds its origin in this same word.
With this background I believe we are able to
begin to apprehend Jesus' position regarding rebellion against governing
authorities. Rather than speak out against angariaverit -- a
practice, the brutality of which, I'm sure he abhorred
-- he was completely silent. We may surmise from this
silence (as well as from other places such as at his own trial) that
Jesus did not consider it his vocation or the vocation of his followers to
protest against the laws of the land. What should one do instead? Do as the
law requires: go the one mile rather than refuse; in other words, there was
nothing intrinsically wrong with angariaverit that should prompt a
Jew to refuse to submit to the governing authorities on the grounds that it
violated God's law.
But not only did Jesus make this very clear in
his silence, he also used the occasion to speak to his hearers a
transformational initiative. Instead of showing contempt for the law and
hating its purveyors, the way to change the brutality of the practice was
to act out in love: "go
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
David, I will forego answering your questions, as I am very willing to let you have the LAST word on this, a non-response from me being the only way I can see of that ever actually happening :>) I will clarify one point, however, and that is that I am not condemning Telemachus' actions, nor the actions of others who stood at other times beside him. I think it is appropriate to speak out in opposition to anything that sets itself against the express will of God. I'm just saying that once you have done so, it is far more effective and Christian to die in that opposition a martyr (witness), as Telemachus did, than it is to die a warrior (rebel). Peace be with you, brother, I am sure there will be opportunities to revisit this. Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Hi Bill. Thanks for the informative response. For the most part, I think we are in agreement. There are a few areas where we differ, so here are some points of clarification: 1. You never answered my question about whether the use of force is appropriate in the situation of protecting your wife. We really can't extend any analogies until I know the answer concerning what you believe is right to do in that situation. Can you please answer this question for me? 2. My argument is not from silence of Scripture unless you consider only the Greek Scriptures to be Scripture. The Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach the concepts I have shared. 3. My point was not to justify rebellion, but to show that war and the overthrow of government is part of God's overall plan. 4. Another point I made concerned the idea that the axiom of "submit to those in authority" is based upon the axiom, "the powers that be are ordained of God." Therefore, exceptions exist in the higher axiom when God appoints new powers in place of old ones. This concept comes from the book of Daniel. 5. Daniel learned from the writings of Jeremiah that to resist Babylon anytime within the next 70 years was futile. The apostles understood that a time frame also existed for the Roman Empire, and to resist it prior to that time would be futile. So your speculation that I would think the early Christians had a right to rebel is wrong. What legitimizes the overthrow of a government is not whether subjects believe they have a right to rebel, but whether God has ordained for that government to be overthrown by the ones who he raises up to overthrow it. Remember my past posts mentioning Cyrus? 6. My reason for bringing in the concept of love was not to justify a reason for when rebellion can be done legitimately, but to understand the logical necessity of it when ruling powers wickedly oppress those whom God loves. The timing of such overthrows are not up to man. The time is completely in God's hands, but that does not mean that he does not use men to do it. The Scriptures are clear that he anoints men to do this task. 7. Your comment about it being wrong to stand up in the Coliseum and say "this is wrong" surprised me. What is your opinion of St. Telemachus? Do you condemn him for doing this very thing? He is considered by many to be the pivotal point that caused the barbaric practices of the Coliseum to stop. Was his martyrdom wrong and contrary to God, in your opinion? 8. I consider it to be a very important Christian principle for men to stand up to our society and declare when it is wrong. Jesus did it in the Temple, seemingly every Passover if we "read between the lines." This Temple cleaning action was a major thing that led to his crucifixion. This work of declaring right and wrong is what brings persecution upon the saints. If we just let everybody have their way, nobody would ever crucify us for anything. The world would love us. How then would it be fulfilled that it is through much tribulation that we enter the kingdom of God? Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
actually, it seems relativly minor, but certainly calld attn to a deadly scandal, to God in the real Temple (not made with hands) exertg His will at that time upon their closd 'temple' society e.g., lookg at the primary 'legal evidnce' at JCs 'trial/s', they argud that he claimed the stone Temple built by slaves ovr a 40 yr period would be (re-) built in 3 days...basically, 'Rome' wanted nothin' to do w/ the case: the Temple was still standg; so the 'logical' retort to them, ultimately directd skepticly to JC, 'what is truth?' makes JC look like their judg evn while he's bein' judgd (by 'idiots':) On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:15:49 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This Temple cleaning action was a major thing that led to his crucifixion.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
In a message dated 12/4/2004 8:44:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzy seems to have been taught by the same teacher as I have on this subject of friendship. I'm glad somebody on this forum understands me. Me too -- otherwise you would be all alone. By the way - your response was entirely predictable. My ex-wife also believed that rules were more important than relationships. Actually, I think KKK members felt the same with added touch of violent enforcement. John By the way -- how is your world view different that Bill's. I really would like to know.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:58:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill writes: Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill Wright does not believe it came from Gamaliel. J
Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
Izzy wrote: David, I believe, is simply stating that he doesnât want you to agree with him (take his side) motivated by friendship. He wants you to stand for truth regardless of personalities. Itâs that simple. That means you should not expect to be rewarded by the person with whom you agreed, but by God. Otherwise you have no reward but the âfriendshipâ of man. (A very poor substitute.) For that you have, again, blasted him. Izzy John Smithson wrote: That last sentence tells me that you did not read carefully my words. No one is blasting David in the above. I am fully capable of such -- but not on this occasion.David expressed a corrective concern that was not necessary -- reminding me that my rever should be in God and not man. In so doing, he completely missed the point of "friendship" as I (and most, I must add) consider friendship. It is David who resists being set on a pedestal. It is Linda who disagrees with David. I am in full agreement while finding that this "correction" had nothing to do with my thinking. I seriously doubt that David felt any offense in my wording. I would be surprised to hear differently. Izzy read me exactly right. I also felt that you were "blasting me." The point of "friendship" is exactly what I was addressing. We have a difference concerning how that friendship ought to operate, so much so that you think I missed the point of friendship. Izzy seems to have been taught by the same teacher as I have on this subject of friendship. I'm glad somebody on this forum understands me. The rest of you will feel stretched as you try to assimilate this, or you will ignore what is being said and comfort yourselves by considering them to be the thoughts of a mad man. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
In a message dated 12/4/2004 8:29:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cool. Be sure to check out one of the earliest "Early Church Fathers," Barnabas. :-) Who? J
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
John Smithson wrote: At least this line of logic (pure as it might be) offers the Smithmeister a reason, for the first time, to delve into the works of these "Fathers>" Cool. Be sure to check out one of the earliest "Early Church Fathers," Barnabas. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
I guess I missed the point. -Original Message-From: Slade HensonSent: Friday, 03 December, 2004 21.11Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant Slade's paraphrase (with help from Aland and Stern): God shows no partiality: for those who-are-without-Torah sin, they also perish without Torah; and those within Torah who sin, by Torah they will be judged (2.11-12). (The hearers of Torah are not just with G-d, but the doers of Torah will be justified) (Romans 2.11-13). Verse 2:14-16a appears to be an example of how this works: For when Gentiles, not having Torah, by nature practice the things of Torah even though they do not have Torah, are Torah! They demonstrate the works of Torah written in their hearts; their consciences and their thoughts bear joint witness and between one another accusing (or even defending) in [the] day when God judges the hidden things of men. I attempt to understand the text from the original language, so my renderings may be a bit different than your favored translation. It appears that both the conscience and the thoughts of man are designed to keep us holy and going good. The question, appears to be is the conscience the Imago Dei? Since I tend to look at the text in active voice, I do not think Imago Dei has to do with the static nature of man (i.e., body+soul+spirit = Father+Son+Holy Spirit) but that the Imago Dei is seen in the activities of man. When we behave as Messiah, we demonstrate the Imago Dei. Is the conscience the Holy Spirit... or is the conscience the internal reaction to the Torah written on our hearts? I don't know. I thank G-d we are given the assurance of salvation through Messiah Yeshua. I would hate to be like one who does not have that assurance. Am I on the right track or have I failed to address the issue? -- slade -Original Message-From: Lance Muir Conscience and the Imago Dei, discuss amongst yourselves. Slade, what do you think?
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Original [Greekified] Text: Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy. Translation: Six Youh Ave.: no[n]sense of Hum or Izzy. Commentary: Six Youh Ave: Quite naturally, the author is telling about the inhabitants of a specific location on some God-forsaken street in a city called Olympic Torch. No[n]sense of Hum: Unfortunately, the rest of the text is not extant, so we do not know if the nonsensical hum is a proper noun (i.e., the name of an individual), the unrelenting noise of an Air Conditioning unit, or even the resonance of the Taos Hum. Or Izzy: However, it is apparent that Izzy can only refer to the father of the blue Whatizit animated blobs (cf. http://www.moerk.org/izzy/IZZY.AVI). -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamilySubject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Hi Bill. Thanks for the informative response. For the most part, I think we are in agreement. There are a few areas where we differ, so here are some points of clarification: 1. You never answered my question about whether the use of force is appropriate in the situation of protecting your wife. We really can't extend any analogies until I know the answer concerning what you believe is right to do in that situation. Can you please answer this question for me? 2. My argument is not from silence of Scripture unless you consider only the Greek Scriptures to be Scripture. The Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach the concepts I have shared. 3. My point was not to justify rebellion, but to show that war and the overthrow of government is part of God's overall plan. 4. Another point I made concerned the idea that the axiom of "submit to those in authority" is based upon the axiom, "the powers that be are ordained of God." Therefore, exceptions exist in the higher axiom when God appoints new powers in place of old ones. This concept comes from the book of Daniel. 5. Daniel learned from the writings of Jeremiah that to resist Babylon anytime within the next 70 years was futile. The apostles understood that a time frame also existed for the Roman Empire, and to resist it prior to that time would be futile. So your speculation that I would think the early Christians had a right to rebel is wrong. What legitimizes the overthrow of a government is not whether subjects believe they have a right to rebel, but whether God has ordained for that government to be overthrown by the ones who he raises up to overthrow it. Remember my past posts mentioning Cyrus? 6. My reason for bringing in the concept of love was not to justify a reason for when rebellion can be done legitimately, but to understand the logical necessity of it when ruling powers wickedly oppress those whom God loves. The timing of such overthrows are not up to man. The time is completely in God's hands, but that does not mean that he does not use men to do it. The Scriptures are clear that he anoints men to do this task. 7. Your comment about it being wrong to stand up in the Coliseum and say "this is wrong" surprised me. What is your opinion of St. Telemachus? Do you condemn him for doing this very thing? He is considered by many to be the pivotal point that caused the barbaric practices of the Coliseum to stop. Was his martyrdom wrong and contrary to God, in your opinion? 8. I consider it to be a very important Christian principle for men to stand up to our society and declare when it is wrong. Jesus did it in the Temple, seemingly every Passover if we "read between the lines." This Temple cleaning action was a major thing that led to his crucifixion. This work of declaring right and wrong is what brings persecution upon the saints. If we just let everybody have their way, nobody would ever crucify us for anything. The world would love us. How then would it be fulfilled that it is through much tribulation that we enter the kingdom of God? Peace be with you.David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
I'm at InnGlory going through the abbreviations, thinking someone needs to add one to the list, when out of the BLUE (get it? blue letters?) it hits me . . . Never mind. Bill - Original Message - From: Bill Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? HUH? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
disregard--not sure how this got postd--sorry On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:46:59 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: HUH? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? ftr, i think the author prov ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I sure hope so. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Slade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
HUH? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:30:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The short answer, and key word here, is "was." Would you like the long(er) answer? Bill Never mind my questioned response. I missed the "Yes he was." John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
The short answer, and key word here, is "was." Would you like the long(er) answer? Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag I know Im going to regret asking the obvious question here, but Bill, how does one have the possibility of being saved if he has rejected his Lord and Savior? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill TaylorSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:04 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, Bill Slade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:26:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FTR, Re: Gen 15, i think the writr appears to 'break' more naturally at the end of verse 6; vs. 7, at least up to vs. 17, seems to be of a literary piece, perhaps inc 18ff., as below this means an argumnt for the unity of meanng in 1-6 and 7- 17, inc/not inc 18f., isn't out of the question On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) G - Thanks for giving me something to think about this evening (after my wife goes to sleep). This will sound rather rediculous, but I have never been taught a single lesson (in school or via a sermon) that had anything to do with Genesis 15. Not one. Kind of amazing. Just shows you have far behind the times I am. Another plus for this forum. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
FTR, Re: Gen 15, i think the writr appears to 'break' more naturally at the end of verse 6; vs. 7, at least up to vs. 17, seems to be of a literary piece, perhaps inc 18ff., as below this means an argumnt for the unity of meanng in 1-6 and 7- 17, inc/not inc 18f., isn't out of the question On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 7:03:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill Now - I do have a problem. How does the idea of universality relate to my question and, more importantly, to your answer? If you don't see my problem -- let me know. By the way -- at any moment, the wife and I are going to spend the rest of the evening together -- I will be unavailable --- right now I have her in the kitchen fixen her man din din. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
This notion that Paul writes in a narrative style as opposed to a theological systems view, could not be any other way. At least as I think of it. I mean, just imagine how a letter to Corinth or Ephesus may have come about -- just from a practical view. You can see Paul perhaps pacing back and forth, while a friend pens Pauls thoughts onto a piece of parchment. We would expect to see Paul move off course, once in a while, begin a list without finishing, use a plural when he meant to use a singular, all those things that typify a casual writing. The fact that there is often much left unsaid lends fuel to the idea that much of Paul's writings are narratives -- perhaps part of a dialogue between him and the addressee(s) And the importance of this idea -- that Paul writes in narrative form as opposed to making an attempt in each and every case at developing a systematic theology to be handed down for the ages, is this: it increases the need for the student to understand the historical and cultural context, and to seek out even the opinions of those (i.e. Early Church Fathers) who lived in a time when Paul was being dicussed by many who both knew and remembered him. There could have been hundreds of such individuals living well into the 2nd century -- with their immediate family (esp. sons and daughters) taking the disucssion up to on into the 3rd century. At least this line of logic (pure as it might be) offers the Smithmeister a reason, for the first time, to delve into the works of these "Fathers>" John
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
ftr, i think the author prov On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:46 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I know I’m going to regret asking the obvious question here, but Bill, how does one have the possibility of being “saved” if he has rejected his Lord and Savior? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, Bill Slade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved? J
[TruthTalk] Topless in the pews
From WorldNetDaily.com: Church ladies go topless in pews Posted: December 4, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com In Battle Creek, Mich., 14 women of St. Thomas Episcopal Church – between ages 55 and 82 – actually bared their breasts to raise money for breast cancer research. Calling themselves The Belles of St. Mary's, the women bared nearly all in an in-pew photo op at St. Thomas church for a calendar they hope will raise money for research. But a mother of four, Helen Cook, who attends the parish, was outraged. Cook said she wrote to her rector, the Rev. Joy Rogers, and the parish's assistant, the Rev. Chris Yaw, saying they would not be returning to St. Thomas, and explaining why: "I told them both that I found the calendar objectionable, inappropriate and that it ran counter to the morals I am attempting to instill into my children. 'Mother Joy', whose name takes on a whole new meaning to me now, never even bothered to answer me. No e-mail, no phone call, nothing. Father Chris answered very briefly, with the argument that there are two sides to everything and that if I reconsidered, to get in touch with him." The national Episcopal Church magazine, Episcopal Life, reports religion writer David Virtue features this Playboy-style parish under the headline BARING (ALMOST ALL) FOR THE FAITH.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
BT, The ensuing speculatg abt v. 17 (Gen 15), refd below, may be correct--it could be abt a unilatrl deal beyond litrl 'descendants'; howevr, the 'diaolog' in Gen 15:18 may have nothing to do with it--v.18 may be anothr 'deal' involvg just Abe's litrl 'descendants', a deal which is actually bi-latrl.. well, perhaps someone (who ain't too 'smart') needs to argue for the unity of vss. up to 17 and 18ff.:) On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:32:08 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Yes, he was. The question, as I have come to see it, is, did he reject his Lord and Savior? I don't know. Where did Saul get his fervor? "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, BillSlade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved?J
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Perhaps because Farley looks a little like me." Oh man, you've done it now! I will never get this image out of my head :>) Bill :-) Tell me I fantasize !! Plase !!! Johnny Boy
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
"Perhaps because Farley looks a little like me." Oh man, you've done it now! I will never get this image out of my head :>) Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List! Smithson checks in with the favorite movie list:Black Rain -- I have seen this perhaps 7 or 8 times.Jeremiah Johnson -- actually my number one movie. I identify with the character and would prefer to live and die in the back woods of the high country. Tommy Boy -- Perhaps because Farley looks a little like me.
Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, the law of God is not sin. The law is holy and good. There is, however, a law of sin and death that works within our physical bodies. That was what we were talking about when I was referring to the "Torah of sin" using Slade's terminology. I don't know if I ever seen use this terminology -- "Torah of sin."
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Sixyouhavenosenseofhumorizzy. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup izzythanksfortheadviceithasbeennotedhoweverthishasnotbeenaproblem oneiliketobehonestfromthestarttwoifiwastotryinternetdatingiwoulnot changeathingthreeihavenoproblemgettingadatefourtakemeforwhoiam orsaygoodbyeitreallydoesnotmattertomeiseethebeautyinsidethecup nothingelseexceptgodmattersfivethatsthewayithastobeorgoodbye jeffthefreak - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 17:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup -Original Message- iamtattooedpiercedwithfiveearringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight jeff Jeff, that’s all fine and good with me, but take my advice and keep It to yourself when it comes to internet dating. J Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 6:02:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up. Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John) for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching. Thanks, Bill Slade, Bill, whoever -- was Gamaliel saved? J
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
Smithson checks in with the favorite movie list: Black Rain -- I have seen this perhaps 7 or 8 times. Jeremiah Johnson -- actually my number one movie. I identify with the character and would prefer to live and die in the back woods of the high country. Tommy Boy -- Perhaps because Farley looks a little like me.
RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
Wrong border, Jeff. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 4:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God solancewouldthatmakegodawetbackpardonthesickhumorijustcannot helpittoday jeff - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 13:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God Happily, Jesus is 'pro-David' and John and Slade and Linda and Bill and Kay and Jeff and George and Linda and Charles...Now, as to crossing the border into Canada for Jonathan and Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 12:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God In a message dated 12/4/2004 9:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course I remember how the Lord used you to defend me in a very similar misunderstanding involving other people. However, if you were doing this because you were "pro-David Miller," that would have been an inappropriate motive. Now you tell me !! It is painfully obvious to me that this was clearly a mistake on my part. "pro-David" is or was another way of speaking of "friendship." Inappropriate ?? Yeh. Perhaps this is why we are where we are today. God does not want you or anyone else being "pro-David Miller." Our eyes need to be on the Lord only. We are but clay vessels that are used from time to time for the Master's purpose. You know these things already. Are you "pro-wife?" Would you do nothing to provide and protect her and her honor? Do you really think that my "pro-David Miller" stance was anthing different -- that I really meant to imply that I honor you to the exclusion of my reverence for Jesus Christ Himself? "Pro David" never implied, to me, that I set you [or anyone] on some kind of pedestal. It can be argued, conversely, that your notion that you occupy the office of Prophet on a pare with "Apostles and Prophets" is an effort to accomplish this very thing -- "pedestal reverence" for David. Of course, none of us would make that argument -- but I have seen it presented by others.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
In a message dated 12/4/2004 5:20:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reading these emails of your, Jeff, is like reading the original texts of the Greek Papyri... no punctuation or spaces. Obviously, Jeff, in his own devious way, has found the perfect counter to effective spell check. JD
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Marlin wrote: Do you think that the law is sin? No, the law of God is not sin. The law is holy and good. There is, however, a law of sin and death that works within our physical bodies. That was what we were talking about when I was referring to the "Torah of sin" using Slade's terminology. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Slade, I fully agree with you. I am not
sure how I failed to communicate this, but thank you for clearing it up.
Each one of Jesus' teachings in the "Sermon" was first a transforming
initiative, given not only to intensify the effects of the Law (thank you, John)
for those without ears to hear, but also to see its recipients to a truly
life-perpetuating conclusion, should they ever embody his teaching.
Thanks,
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
Slade
Henson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 6:30
PM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the
Flag
Very
good post, Mr. Bill T.
I
enjoy and share your understanding of the historical context. The
however I have is not a however in disagreement but one of semantics. You
say Yeshua was silent regarding angariaverit, but I say He did have a
commentary on the subject: Go with him an extra mile. A person could not be
subjected to an extra mile by the Roman soldier and most "subjects," if they
didn't flee before the mile was up, was definitely gone at the close of the
mile. How much conversation would ensue if a person decided to hold the
soldier's gear an additional mile? Do you think an opportunity to "witness"
would arise? These soldiers, actually, were important instruments in the
spread of the Good News because they were always [generally] on the move
outward from Rome.
The
preamble ("giving the other cheek"), is a Hebrew idiom to NOT pay
back insult with insult. The closest English idiom I can think of is when an
insult is called a slap in the face.
--
slade
-Original Message-From: Bill
TaylorSubject: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the
Flag
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Very
good post, Mr. Bill T.
I
enjoy and share your understanding of the historical context. The however I
have is not a however in disagreement but one of semantics. You say Yeshua was
silent regarding angariaverit, but I say He did have a commentary on the
subject: Go with him an extra mile. A person could not be subjected to an extra
mile by the Roman soldier and most "subjects," if they didn't flee before the
mile was up, was definitely gone at the close of the mile. How much conversation
would ensue if a person decided to hold the soldier's gear an additional mile?
Do you think an opportunity to "witness" would arise? These soldiers, actually,
were important instruments in the spread of the Good News because they were
always [generally] on the move outward from Rome.
The
preamble ("giving the other cheek"), is a Hebrew idiom to NOT pay back
insult with insult. The closest English idiom I can think of is when an insult
is called a slap in the face.
--
slade
-Original Message-From: Bill
TaylorSubject: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the
Flag
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
Alright, my favorite movies: Number 1 -- The Christmas Story. I've seen it a million times and still love it: the flag pole, the temperamental furnace, the Red Rider BB-gun, the soap, so much going on. Number 2 -- Sandlot. For a lot the same reasons. The swimming pool-mock-drowning scene is one of the funniest ever. Number 3 -- The Thomas Crown Affair (latest version). Don't ask me why but I love this movie, the cat-n-mouse suspension. Who knows, I may never tire of watching it. Bill - Original Message - From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! > UGGGH I can't stand Joe v. the Volcano. It's one of the dumbest movies > I've ever seen. He makes me WATCH that dumb thing while he cracks up > laughing the whole time > > Kay > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Slade Henson > Sent: Friday, 03 December, 2004 21.18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! > > > Slade's List (in no Particular Order with missing titles that did not come > to mind) -- > >Joe vs. the Volcano > >The Snake Pit > >The Silent Earth > >My Life As A Dog (Swedish + English Subtitles) > > -- > "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] The Outside of the Cup
Reading these emails of your, Jeff, is like reading the original texts of the Greek Papyri... no punctuation or spaces. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Saturday, 04 December, 2004 18.48To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup izzythanksfortheadviceithasbeennotedhoweverthishasnotbeenaproblem oneiliketobehonestfromthestarttwoifiwastotryinternetdatingiwoulnot changeathingthreeihavenoproblemgettingadatefourtakemeforwhoiam orsaygoodbyeitreallydoesnotmattertomeiseethebeautyinsidethecup nothingelseexceptgodmattersfivethatsthewayithastobeorgoodbye jeffthefreak - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 17:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup -Original Message- iamtattooedpiercedwithfiveearringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight jeff Jeff, thats all fine and good with me, but take my advice and keep It to yourself when it comes to internet dating. J Iz
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
no doubt, Bill (I've been catchin' up on some of your input); e.g., the hypd historcl rebellion of biblicl blessing-seekers simultaneously categorically cursing (castg out) the indigenous occupant-obstacles [as CPs '1667' doc (already 75 posts ago:) also enlightns..] On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:17:19 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..[the FF] should not have rebelled.
Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant
why America is not blessed: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:43:59 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..blessings are in Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
izzythanksfortheadviceithasbeennotedhoweverthishasnotbeenaproblem oneiliketobehonestfromthestarttwoifiwastotryinternetdatingiwoulnot changeathingthreeihavenoproblemgettingadatefourtakemeforwhoiam orsaygoodbyeitreallydoesnotmattertomeiseethebeautyinsidethecup nothingelseexceptgodmattersfivethatsthewayithastobeorgoodbye jeffthefreak - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 17:10 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup -Original Message- iamtattooedpiercedwithfiveearringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight jeff Jeff, thats all fine and good with me, but take my advice and keep It to yourself when it comes to internet dating. J Iz
[TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
David, you assert that Jesus' words in Matthew 5.39
("But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your
right cheek, turn the other to him also") do not apply in our discussion
concerning submitting to governing authorities. I would like to point out to you
(for the sake of any readers who may be half-heartedly following this thread)
that I have not yet claimed that they did. I shall be asking you a
couple questions (below) as to why you even chose to point this out. But first I
would like to direct your attention to another statement from our Lord in the
same discourse, where I believe Jesus is very much speaking to the kind of
citizens-in-submission-to-government relations that we are discussing
here in our disagreement over the American Revolution. In fact, you can
find his statement only two verses after he commands his hearers to turn the
other cheek: "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two" (v.
41).
What does Jesus mean when he says if someone
compels you to go one mile, go with him two? He is speaking about the Roman law
which stated that citizens of a Roman province, if requested to, had to carry a
soldiers gear -- or in some other way go into his service -- for up to
one mile. This practice was called angariaverit, from a word of
Persian origin meaning "impressment of service." In Persia there were
public couriers stationed by the King of Persia at fixed locations, with horses
ready for use, to send royal messages from one station to another. If a Persian
citizen (male) was passing by such a post-station, these couriers had the
authority to rush out and compel the citizen to ride back to another station to
do an errand for the king. Angariaverit found its way in various forms
into Roman law. This is the law which compelled Simon of
Cyrene to carry the cross of Christ (Mat 27:32).
The Jews hated this law for several
reasons: 1) It was very degrading to them. After the Exodus and their
return from Exile, and the freedom from captivity which both
brought, the Jews were quite reluctant to yield their rights once again to
yet another foreign power, especially when it was in their own homeland that
they were required to do so! 2) It presented a major inconvenience. When
angariaverit was called, it meant that the Jew had to suspend whatever
he was doing, to do that which was requested of him -- and this again to serve a
"foreign" ruler, the status of whom many Jews refused to acknowledge. 3) It was
brutal. The Roman guard often exploited their authority by whipping and prodding
their already shamed Jewish servants to "move it along." And 4) it presented
a logistical problem. Even when his angariaverit was
finished, the Jew still had a mile to travel, whipped and bruised, on tired and
sore feet, to get back to whatever it was he had been doing.
By the way, the Latin root for our word
"anger" finds its origin in this same word.
With this background I believe we are able to begin
to apprehend Jesus' position regarding rebellion against governing authorities.
Rather than speak out against angariaverit -- a practice, the
brutality of which, I'm sure he abhorred -- he was
completely silent. We may surmise from this silence (as well as from
other places such as at his own trial) that Jesus did not consider it his
vocation or the vocation of his followers to protest against the laws of the
land. What should one do instead? Do as the law requires: go the one mile rather
than refuse; in other words, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with
angariaverit that should prompt a Jew to refuse to submit to the
governing authorities on the grounds that it violated God's law.
But not only did Jesus make this very clear in his
silence, he also used the occasion to speak to his hearers a transformational
initiative. Instead of showing contempt for the law and hating its
purveyors, the way to change the brutality of the practice was to act out in
love: "go with him two." Can you imagine the bewilderment that passed over the
crowd when the weight of those words began to register? "What! go with him
two?" Far from giving his fellow Jews a warrant for rebellion, Jesus
commanded them to do just the opposite. Don't rebel against your governing
authorities; instead go with them two miles -- the first out of obedience
to God (yes, God) and the second because you love them and want them to know
why.
In the Jewish frenzy to find a warrior king, is it
any wonder that Jesus found himself hanging from a tree?
In the mind of Jesus and that of Paul, pacifism is
the door to divine intervention. Why are wars so prevalent? because over
and over Christians have misused their mandate. They have become aggressors
rather than peacemakers. I get a little bit put off -- dare I say angry? -- at
those who think to refuse to rebel means you are weak or effeminate. "Oh
you're a pacifist," as if there's something un-American a
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 2:42:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: eHa -- I's on a roll. By the wave, years agao, while in my 30's, I had something to do with install many miles of sewer, strom drain and water. JD whew !!! maybe I should slow down just a bit ! Perhaps my meaning is remains dispite the mis - Q's. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 2:38:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: amenbrother eHa -- I's on a roll. By the wave, years agao, while in my 30's, I had something to do with install many miles of sewer, strom drain and water. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
andithoughtiwasnearlyalonethanksjohn jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 23:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 8:07:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rejecting patriotism.Repent of this !! Bless your little old southern heart, girl. Politics and patriotism are not the same. In fact, perhaps it is the true partiot who rejects politics. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
amenbrother - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 22:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 7:11:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Canada awaits you both. IzI plan on going nowhere. Our country needs fixen -- and politics is definitely not the answer. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
attaboyjohnafterbuildingwastewatersystemsfortwentyyears iveseenthesamething jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 22:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 2:32:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was somewhat taken aback after about half of it. I am still wondering if the questions are to be answered. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]By the way -- Slade, if that "letter" offended, I hope you understand what was going on when I submitted it. I did see some humor there. I am as attached to the Torah as you, but for differing reasons. Perhaps, in time, those differences will not be as pronounced as they might be, on this day. Just haven't heard much from you since that day. If I need to say more, I will. John No. I am sure in the mind of the guy who wrote to Luara, he was trying to make a point, being that he was an atheist and all. He was making fun of our traditions. Maybe the difference in how it was received is that, in my world (construction), I come across those who make fun of my thinking and commitment all the time. I don't get hurt by it, nor do I get angry. And if the insult is funny, I laugh. But they had better be able to receive as much as they give -- all with a smile on my glorious face. The fact that I am not easily offended by the world has given me many opportunities to share my faith. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 2:04:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J, you may well be in the practice of maligning the very people who do this type of thing. Izzy how so J Ask the Holy Spirit. You wrote it -- the Holy Spirit doesn't even know. I asked. So enlighten the both of us. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
hemightbewewillknowintime jeff - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 14:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag so you're ! the one (..currently seatd in Moses' seat) g> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:07:29 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ..I can't see from where I sit 'cause well...ya know? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
In a message dated 12/4/2004 1:55:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Linda Shields posts some thoughts not received by me except in this post from Lance. Are you "pro-wife?" Would you do nothing to provide and protect her and her honor? Do you really think that my "pro-David Miller" stance was anthing different -- that I really meant to imply that I honor you to the exclusion of my reverence for Jesus Christ Himself? "Pro David" never implied, to me, that I set you [or anyone] on some kind of pedestal. It can be argued, conversely, that your notion that you occupy the office of Prophet on a pare with "Apostles and Prophets" is an effort to accomplish this very thing -- "pedestal reverence" for David. Of course, none of us would make that argument -- but I have seen it presented by others. Sadly your wounded ego is hanging out here again, JD. (We Greek âdualistsâ refer to that as the âfleshâ I have learned J ) David, I believe, is simply stating that he doesnât want you to agree with him (take his side) motivated by friendship. He wants you to stand for truth regardless of personalities. Itâs that simple. That means you should not expect to be rewarded by the person with whom you agreed, but by God. Otherwise you have no reward but the âfriendshipâ of man. (A very poor substitute.) For that you have, again, blasted him. Izzy That last sentence tells me that you did not read carefully my words. No one is blasting David in the above. I am fully capable of such -- but not on this occasion. David expressed a corrective concern that was not necessary -- reminding me that my rever should be in God and not man. In so doing, he completely missed the point of "friendship" as I (and most, I must add) consider friendship. It is David who resists being set on a pedestal. It is Linda who disagrees with David. I am in full agreement while finding that this "correction" had nothing to do with my thinking. I seriously doubt that David felt any offense in my wording. I would be surprised to hear differently. John
Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?
Do you think that the law is sin - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down? > David Miller wrote: > > I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow > > who had married another man to have a "renewed" > > marriage contract or a new one. > > Slade wrote: > > The logic is wrong here. We are the widow who are then > > able to marry our True Husband. We are not divorced from > > Torah of Moses to marry Messiah, we are divorced from > > the "Torah of sin" (to quote D.Stern, I think) to marry Messiah. > > There are two questions involved here. First, I was just asking whether or > not a widow who married again was considered to have a renewed or new > marriage contract. Can I assume that your answer here is that a widow who > married again has a new marriage contract? > > The second question concerns the passage in Romans. You say that we are not > divorced from "Torah of Moses" to marry Messiah, but rather we are divorced > from "Torah of sin." Let's examine that, but first let me affirm that we > are indeed to divorce from the Torah of sin, and to consider ourselves dead > to the Torah of sin, that we might be married to Messiah. We agree on that, > but not on the Torah of Moses thing. Look at the passage for yourself. > > Romans 7:3-13 > (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she > shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from > that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another > man. > (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body > of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised > from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. > (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the > law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. > (6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were > held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of > the letter. > (7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known > sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou > shalt not covet. > (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of > concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. > (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin > revived, and I died. > (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto > death. > (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it > slew me. > (12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and > good. > (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, > that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that > sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. > > Verse 3. Clearly this is Torah of Moses. The Torah of Moses is what > prohibits adultery, but releases the woman to remarry in the case of death. > The Torah of sin does not prohibit adultery. So verse 3 is speaking about > the Torah of Moses. Agreed? > > Verse 4. You believe that this verse is talking about Torah of sin while I > believe it continues to talk about Torah of Moses. Why do I believe that? > Because of the previous and subsequent verses. > > Verse 5. The motions of sin, which were by the law... which law? The law > of Moses, as he explains in verse 6 & 7. > > Verse 6. Now we are delivered from the law... which law? The law of Moses, > as he explains in verses 7 & 8. > > Verse 7. Is the law sin? Well, if we were talking about the law of sin, > the answer would be yes, but no, we are talking about the law of Moses. > Therefore, verses 4, 5, & 6 leading up to this verse clearly has the law of > Moses in view. This is most abundantly clear by what follows next. He > actually quotes the law: I had not know lust, except the law had said, > 'Thou shalt not covet.' Which law is this? Clearly not the law of sin, but > the law of Moses. What Paul is explaining here is an interaction between > the law of Moses and the law of sin in our members. > > Verse 8. Without the law, sin was dead. Which law? Again, it is the law > of Moses. > > Look at verse 11: sin taking occasion by the commandment... which > commandment? The commandment that comes from the law of Moses. > > I could go on and on, but surely you get the point. The law Paul speaks > about here is the law of Moses. He specifically quotes a commandment of > that law (thou shalt not covet). More importantly, he is talking about a > kind of relationship with the law, a covenant, whereby one seeks to be > justified before God through observing the law of Moses. I believe you have > used the word "legalism" to describe this
Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
solancewouldthatmakegodawetbackpardonthesickhumorijustcannot helpittoday jeff - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 13:46 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God Happily, Jesus is 'pro-David' and John and Slade and Linda and Bill and Kay and Jeff and George and Linda and Charles...Now, as to crossing the border into Canada for Jonathan and Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 12:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God In a message dated 12/4/2004 9:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course I remember how the Lord used you to defend me in a very similar misunderstanding involving other people. However, if you were doing this because you were "pro-David Miller," that would have been an inappropriate motive. Now you tell me !! It is painfully obvious to me that this was clearly a mistake on my part. "pro-David" is or was another way of speaking of "friendship." Inappropriate ?? Yeh. Perhaps this is why we are where we are today. God does not want you or anyone else being "pro-David Miller." Our eyes need to be on the Lord only. We are but clay vessels that are used from time to time for the Master's purpose. You know these things already.Are you "pro-wife?" Would you do nothing to provide and protect her and her honor? Do you really think that my "pro-David Miller" stance was anthing different -- that I really meant to imply that I honor you to the exclusion of my reverence for Jesus Christ Himself? "Pro David" never implied, to me, that I set you [or anyone] on some kind of pedestal. It can be argued, conversely, that your notion that you occupy the office of Prophet on a pare with "Apostles and Prophets" is an effort to accomplish this very thing -- "pedestal reverence" for David. Of course, none of us would make that argument -- but I have seen it presented by others.
RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
Izzy's nomination for Funniest Movie: "Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels" with Steve Martin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 4:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List! thatsbecausekayhasnotasteinmoviesandstillmissesthesubtlehumorofthismovie formeilovethejewishunderpinningsofthenativesitsthefunniestmovieithinkieversaw thenilikpiratesofthecarribean1941shaneoldyellerandfiddlerontherooftonameafew jeff - Original Message - From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 22:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! > UGGGH I can't stand Joe v. the Volcano. It's one of the dumbest movies > I've ever seen. He makes me WATCH that dumb thing while he cracks up > laughing the whole time > > Kay > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Slade Henson > Sent: Friday, 03 December, 2004 21.18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! > > > Slade's List (in no Particular Order with missing titles that did not come > to mind) -- > > Joe vs. the Volcano > > The Snake Pit > > The Silent Earth > > My Life As A Dog (Swedish + English Subtitles) > > -- > "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] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 12:10:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am. That's why I'm saving the eight bucks. That's money better spent on... say... Romans and the People of God N. T. Wright (Since I can't find Romans in a Week) What Saint Paul Really Said N. T. Wright -- slade Lance will know -- the CD pac (10 in all) is called "Romans in a Week. Perhaps the book is "The People of God." I know that Wright refers to that book in the CD presentation. Something else that is significant with Wright's teaching: He sees much more connected unity in the thinking of Paul than most commentators. He believes that to view Paul in Romans as going from one disjointed teaching to another produces somewhat of an exegetical nightmare. So, when Paul writes of a Gentile outside of Torah, or a righteousness that is, in fact, the righteousness of God Himself as a result of His convenant faithfulness, or circumcision of the heart -- all of this is very connected and Wright does an excellent job of getting you to see not only this point (of connectivity) but the blessing of understanding that might be associated with this understanding. I would recommend the CD pac because in the listening, you appreciate the passion of the presentor as well as his insightfulness. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Movie List!
thatsbecausekayhasnotasteinmoviesandstillmissesthesubtlehumorofthismovie formeilovethejewishunderpinningsofthenativesitsthefunniestmovieithinkieversaw thenilikpiratesofthecarribean1941shaneoldyellerandfiddlerontherooftonameafew jeff - Original Message - From: "Slade Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 22:23 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! UGGGH I can't stand Joe v. the Volcano. It's one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. He makes me WATCH that dumb thing while he cracks up laughing the whole time Kay -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Friday, 03 December, 2004 21.18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Movie List! Slade's List (in no Particular Order with missing titles that did not come to mind) -- Joe vs. the Volcano The Snake Pit The Silent Earth My Life As A Dog (Swedish + English Subtitles) -- "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] The Outside of the Cup
-Original Message- iamtattooedpiercedwithfiveearringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight jeff Jeff, that’s all fine and good with me, but take my advice and keep It to yourself when it comes to internet dating. J Iz
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Your perception is amazing! :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup Let me guess: it's the 'being often wrong' upon which we agree? - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 04, 2004 16:48 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > Something upon which we can agree. :-) Iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 1:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > > My initial response is to celebrate that which is of the Spirit of God in > these anecdotes. He knows. I don't. > > My secondary response: I have a 'sense' that you, David, are much occupied > with the 'outside of the cup'.That's just me and, I am often wrong. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: December 04, 2004 12:49 > Subject: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > > > > I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one > > another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various > > backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not > as > > important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but > > not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. > > > > On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different > outsides > > of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among > Christians, > > we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men > > with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking > beer > > and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside > > of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different > > outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen > > this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will > > look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically > assume > > that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately > > distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with > > them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. > > They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't > they?" > > > > I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took > > months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one > guy > > sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job > and > > housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, > he > > would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an > unspoken > > thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really > care > > about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I > was > > like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at > his > > side. > > > > One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to > > help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. > > At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the > > poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in > > reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted > > to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It > > touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his > > message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, > > but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. > > > > I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and > jobs > > and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to > encourage > > me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, > or > > have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me > > good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. > > Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a > clean > > outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup > > are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first > thing > > this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to > let > > you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all > > work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different > > class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits > and > > the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians >
RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
LOL! How so? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God 'Piling on' Ten yard penalty.Wait a sec that was agregious 'piling on' make that 25 yards.
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 11:40:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J, you may well be in the practice of maligning the very people who do this type of thing. Izzy how so J Ask the Holy Spirit.
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Autonomy? Individualism? Both are celebrated in your 'documents'. Neither is compatible with the gospel. Oh, you are exactly and perfectly wrong on that one, Lance. Our God is the author of Uniqueness—He made each and every one of us that way to delight in us. What about all the liberal mouth-movements about valuing diversity? God made people in all different forms, shapes, sizes, colors, nationalities (which are WONDERFUL-God forbid “globalism”!), etc, etc. And that’s just the human beings!!! Autonomy? I call it self-reliance vs state-reliance. Responsibility vs victimization. Being a strong, hard-working, contributing person vs. being a weak, lazy, what-can-you-give-me slug. A nation of autonomous people in America have given more (food, money, gospel, liberty, etc.)to the rest of the world than everyone else put together. Izzy PS g, you can stuff your “myths”.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
thankyouverymuchdavidienjoyedthisgreatlyitsinterrestingthattheoutsides thatyoudescribedareveryrealtomeinfactyoursecondparagraphisaverygood descriptionofmeinallaspectsexceptthelonghairsowhatdoithinkofthispost bravomyfriendverywellwrittenandbythewayyoumightwanttobealittlemore explicitinthefutureithinkterrymissedsomethingashewassomewhatputoffby theearringonmensoforthesakeofclarityterryiamtattooedpiercedwithfive earringsinoneearismokeenjoywineandbeeramdirtpoorandabitoverweight havingsaidthisimustadmitthatsincemeetingdavidandmichaeliknowdavid wasnotdescribingonlymehedescribedseveralpeoplethatwebothknow andtodavidscreditheisneitherjudgementaloftheseflawsasmanyseethem orofarejectingnatureinfactinlightofdavidsdescriptionbeingsorighton themarkwhenitcomestomethatheinvitedmeuptospendthedaybut unfortunatelyihadtoworkeventhoughiprefernottoworkonthesabbath inorderformetocontinueinseminaryihavebeenputinasituationthat requiresmetocompromisemyconvictionsfortheshorttermtobe obedienttowhatiperceivetobegodswillinmylifewhatisgodsreasoning forthisisbeyondmebutfornowiamcontenttodoashewantseventhough ihavenoideawhatgodhasplannedformeshalommyfriendandagain thankyou jeff - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 12:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not as important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different outsides of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among Christians, we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking beer and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically assume that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't they?" I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one guy sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job and housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, he would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an unspoken thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really care about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I was like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at his side. One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and jobs and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to encourage me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, or have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a clean outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first thing this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to let you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits and the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians and then the Democrat Christians. There are not the Conservative Chr
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Oh, well. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Possible? Of course. Likely? I think not. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:03 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag What if we are just more perceptive than you imagine, and both “read the heart of the writer” and understand what his real underlying agenda is—and reject it? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag NOT ALWAYS BUT ON OCCASION, I can read between the lines on everyone's posts. I'm going to go out on a limb here and, suggest that there are two (David and Linda) who do not seem to be able to 'read the heart' of a writer. This, if true, may be a partial contributing factor informing the acrimonious exchanges between them and SOME ON SOME OCCASIONS on TT. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 03, 2004 22:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 2:44:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also understand that I cannot read between the lines of Bill's posts as well as someone like you because I have a different world view than he does while you and he share similar world views. What is your "world view" and how does it differ from Billy T's? John
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Let me guess: it's the 'being often wrong' upon which we agree? - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 04, 2004 16:48 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > Something upon which we can agree. :-) Iz > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 1:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > > My initial response is to celebrate that which is of the Spirit of God in > these anecdotes. He knows. I don't. > > My secondary response: I have a 'sense' that you, David, are much occupied > with the 'outside of the cup'.That's just me and, I am often wrong. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: December 04, 2004 12:49 > Subject: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > > > > I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one > > another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various > > backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not > as > > important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but > > not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. > > > > On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different > outsides > > of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among > Christians, > > we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men > > with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking > beer > > and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside > > of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different > > outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen > > this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will > > look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically > assume > > that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately > > distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with > > them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. > > They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't > they?" > > > > I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took > > months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one > guy > > sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job > and > > housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, > he > > would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an > unspoken > > thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really > care > > about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I > was > > like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at > his > > side. > > > > One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to > > help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. > > At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the > > poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in > > reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted > > to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It > > touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his > > message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, > > but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. > > > > I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and > jobs > > and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to > encourage > > me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, > or > > have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me > > good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. > > Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a > clean > > outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup > > are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first > thing > > this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to > let > > you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all > > work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different > > class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits > and > > the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians > > and then the Democrat Christians. There are not the Conservative > Christians > > and then the Liberal Christians. God has called all of us to be one, to > be > > Christian, regardless of our socio-economic status. Maybe we should focus > > u
RE: [TruthTalk] American Indians
(Look who’s talking—Sir Lancelot himself.) J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians Charm school? Are you kidding me? When it comes to this ya got everyone on TT beat hands down. Remember, Linda, I can read between lines. You are a charmer par excellent. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:00 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] American Indians Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians Do you remember which observation of mine you deemed to most perceptive I'd made on TT (something like 'only those who really 'get it do it')? Keep that in mind vis a vis yourself and David Miller. You've both shared from your lives. David's activities this weekend are indicative of a life being lived in the Spirit. You also. Linda (and David):IMO it is the admixture of political ideaology, rationalist philosophy, closed vs open-structured thinking, a harshness on some matters that is unbecoming and, not reflective of 'the Father Heart of God', sometimes more than a hint of dualism (a Greek vs Hebraic 'seeing' of God's Creation) that precipitates, even exacerbates a confrontational response from me.(Some others have, can and, will speak for themselves. They may wish to diagree with what I say here) Again, what little I read from you (both) of your lives would lead me to thank God for you (both). It is what you say and, the way that you say it ON SOME OCCASIONS, IMO inconsistent with your lives..Clear? Not clear? I'm not asking for you (both) to agree. I'm asking if ON OCCASION you see how you are so perceived? Lance, you openness is appreciated. I can only speak for myself. (David and I are actually quite different, but you only see the TT side of us, and seem to think we are very much alike.) But as for how people perceive me, yes, I DO realize that I am more than irritating to some folks. The unfortunate thing (for you) is that this doesn’t really bother me. To me it is much more important to “get it and do it” than to be popular. It is more important to speak the truth (which is necessarily going to offend someone somewhere) than it is to compromise for the sake of the god of “relationships”. I have a clear understanding of what is right and wrong (for me at least) and I’m not one to vacillate once I’ve carefully thought things through and made up my mind. However, I am always on the lookout for new and valuable truths, or refinements upon current truths, that I can incorporate into my paradigm of life. That’s one reason I enjoy TT so much. Even more than than the people I get to know here, I love the opportunity to test and refine my belief system. The people who come off as hateful and against all that I love and believe do not offer me any new ideas, but they do help confirm the value of what I already know and believe to be true. Perhaps that is where you find me most frustrating. So you don’t like the perceived “harshness”. Hummm. What do you suggest? Perhaps a class in tactfulness? Back to charm school? I guess, as I have admitted, I am rabidly loyal—which sometimes requires digging in and fighting. My “dualism” bothers you? I’m not even sure of what that means. Perhaps you can help me out here. You, Lance, are at times just as frustrating to me as I probably am to you. But you seem to be the most kind and least easily offended person in your “camp” so to speak. You also have a delightful sense of humor, and seem unthreatened enough by those of opposing philosophies to reach out a hand of friendship. For this I am grateful, as you have been a joy to know. (And I have no idea if this helps you at all.) J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
'Piling on' Ten yard penalty.Wait a sec that was agregious 'piling on' make that 25 yards. From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 16:41 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God Izzy in blue: Of course I remember how the Lord used you to defend me in a very similar misunderstanding involving other people. However, if you were doing this because you were "pro-David Miller," that would have been an inappropriate motive. Now you tell me !! It is painfully obvious to me that this was clearly a mistake on my part. "pro-David" is or was another way of speaking of "friendship." Inappropriate ?? Yeh. Perhaps this is why we are where we are today. God does not want you or anyone else being "pro-David Miller." Our eyes need to be on the Lord only. We are but clay vessels that are used from time to time for the Master's purpose. You know these things already. Are you "pro-wife?" Would you do nothing to provide and protect her and her honor? Do you really think that my "pro-David Miller" stance was anthing different -- that I really meant to imply that I honor you to the exclusion of my reverence for Jesus Christ Himself? "Pro David" never implied, to me, that I set you [or anyone] on some kind of pedestal. It can be argued, conversely, that your notion that you occupy the office of Prophet on a pare with "Apostles and Prophets" is an effort to accomplish this very thing -- "pedestal reverence" for David. Of course, none of us would make that argument -- but I have seen it presented by others. Sadly your wounded ego is hanging out here again, JD. (We Greek dualists refer to that as the flesh I have learned J ) David, I believe, is simply stating that he doesnt want you to agree with him (take his side) motivated by friendship. He wants you to stand for truth regardless of personalities. Its that simple. That means you should not expect to be rewarded by the person with whom you agreed, but by God. Otherwise you have no reward but the friendship of man. (A very poor substitute.) For that you have, again, blasted him. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
J (You’d hate my neighborhood! Try men with purses? I draw the line at the high heels, myself.) Iz I could have bought the whole package, but you had to put in the guy with the ear ring. :-) Terry --
RE: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
Something upon which we can agree. :-) Iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup My initial response is to celebrate that which is of the Spirit of God in these anecdotes. He knows. I don't. My secondary response: I have a 'sense' that you, David, are much occupied with the 'outside of the cup'.That's just me and, I am often wrong. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 04, 2004 12:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one > another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various > backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not as > important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but > not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. > > On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different outsides > of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among Christians, > we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men > with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking beer > and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside > of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different > outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen > this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will > look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically assume > that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately > distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with > them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. > They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't they?" > > I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took > months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one guy > sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job and > housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, he > would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an unspoken > thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really care > about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I was > like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at his > side. > > One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to > help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. > At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the > poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in > reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted > to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It > touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his > message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, > but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. > > I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and jobs > and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to encourage > me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, or > have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me > good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. > Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a clean > outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup > are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first thing > this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to let > you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all > work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different > class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits and > the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians > and then the Democrat Christians. There are not the Conservative Christians > and then the Liberal Christians. God has called all of us to be one, to be > Christian, regardless of our socio-economic status. Maybe we should focus > upon that. I know John S. agrees because he wrote something along these > lines recently. What do the rest of you think? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you wi
RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
Izzy in blue: Of course I remember how the Lord used you to defend me in a very similar misunderstanding involving other people. However, if you were doing this because you were "pro-David Miller," that would have been an inappropriate motive. Now you tell me !! It is painfully obvious to me that this was clearly a mistake on my part. "pro-David" is or was another way of speaking of "friendship." Inappropriate ?? Yeh. Perhaps this is why we are where we are today. God does not want you or anyone else being "pro-David Miller." Our eyes need to be on the Lord only. We are but clay vessels that are used from time to time for the Master's purpose. You know these things already. Are you "pro-wife?" Would you do nothing to provide and protect her and her honor? Do you really think that my "pro-David Miller" stance was anthing different -- that I really meant to imply that I honor you to the exclusion of my reverence for Jesus Christ Himself? "Pro David" never implied, to me, that I set you [or anyone] on some kind of pedestal. It can be argued, conversely, that your notion that you occupy the office of Prophet on a pare with "Apostles and Prophets" is an effort to accomplish this very thing -- "pedestal reverence" for David. Of course, none of us would make that argument -- but I have seen it presented by others. Sadly your wounded ego is hanging out here again, JD. (We Greek “dualists” refer to that as the “flesh” I have learned J ) David, I believe, is simply stating that he doesn’t want you to agree with him (take his side) motivated by friendship. He wants you to stand for truth regardless of personalities. It’s that simple. That means you should not expect to be rewarded by the person with whom you agreed, but by God. Otherwise you have no reward but the “friendship” of man. (A very poor substitute.) For that you have, again, blasted him. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
In a message dated 12/4/2004 11:40:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: J, you may well be in the practice of maligning the very people who do this type of thing. Izzy how so J
RE: [TruthTalk] The Schizophrenic God
-Original Message- Our joy is seeing others prosper and getting out those wrinkles that they had always considered to be trivial and unimportant. Peace be with you. David Miller. Matt 23:8 "But (9) do not be called (10) Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for (11) One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 "(12) But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 "(13) Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Possible? Of course. Likely? I think not. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:03 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag What if we are just more perceptive than you imagine, and both read the heart of the writer and understand what his real underlying agenda isand reject it? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:37 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag NOT ALWAYS BUT ON OCCASION, I can read between the lines on everyone's posts. I'm going to go out on a limb here and, suggest that there are two (David and Linda) who do not seem to be able to 'read the heart' of a writer. This, if true, may be a partial contributing factor informing the acrimonious exchanges between them and SOME ON SOME OCCASIONS on TT. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 03, 2004 22:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 2:44:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also understand that I cannot read between the lines of Bill's posts as well as someone like you because I have a different world view than he does while you and he share similar world views. What is your "world view" and how does it differ from Billy T's?John
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Yikes. I've been 'outed' (no play on words now). - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:09 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Another unbeliever. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:05 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Please allow me to back up and, take another run at this.The concept of 'manifest destiny' is outlined therein. If you're interested then, read it.I read it. I don't concur with the concept. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag your reasoning? On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:33:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: IMO no. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 3:57:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David:Have you read 'The Light and the Glory;? Do you subscribe to the heartof it's message. Do you believe God to be working in important anddistinctive ways through your country throughout the world (including Iraq)? Lance -- recommended reading?JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
Autonomy? Individualism? Both are celebrated in your 'documents'. Neither is compatible with the gospel. - Original Message - From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 04, 2004 15:06 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag > I think the basic argument here is not whether the Founders were all perfect > Christians, but rather what was the intent of the Constitution and founding > documents regarding God and Christianity. I believe that anyone who has read > those documents w/o blinders on can see that they assumed that both were > necessary elements in the success of America. Izzy > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 6:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag > > For the time being just name the names of 'the signers of the Constitution > and the Declaration of Independence' IYO who both believed and lived the > gospel.I do not mean to suggest that there were none only, that I do not > know who they were. > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: December 03, 2004 23:30 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag > > > > Lance wrote: > > > When many, if not all, on TT speak the name JESUS > > > we understand IMMANUEL/GOD WITH US. How > > > often did the 'founding fathers' actually speak His name? > > > When they spoke of Him will you illustrate, with citations > > > from their own writings, just what they meant? > > > > When we talk about the revolutionary war and the role of religion and > > religious beliefs, I don't think we can only consider "founding fathers." > > Sure, we can find quotes by some of the signers of the Constitution and > > Declaration of Independence that indicate a faith in Jesus. Some of them > > actually founded Bible societies, and I understand that Congress in 1777 > > used funds to appropriate 20,000 Bibles. But the real role of believers > is > > not unlike today. They were not so much in the spotlight, and those who > > were ranged from being like George Bush and Jimmy Carter to Richard Nixon > > and Bill Clinton. Not exactly shining stars of evangelical Christianity. > > > > I studied this years ago and so I don't have references ready for you > right > > now, but I came away with an understanding that about a third of the > people > > of this country favored the revolutionary war. About another third were > > against it. The final third were swayed one way or the other, and it was > > the activity of the pulpits that played a big role in getting many in that > > final third to support independence. For the most part these are not > > 'founding fathers' per se, but important influences in society. > > > > There are a some elements in our society that try to make even Thomas > > Jefferson and Ben Franklin evangelical Christians with quotes. This is > > ludicrous. Such quotes are selective and often isolated and not > considering > > the whole man and everything he wrote. In the same vein, there are some > > elements in our society that try to make it look like none of the founding > > fathers were Christian. These quotes also are very selective and taken > out > > of context and not accurately evaluating the whole person. The truth is > > that we had primarily secular men framing the Constitution who also > > recognized the value of Christianity. For example, while Thomas Jefferson > > was a Deist, he compiled his own diary of the teachings of Jesus Christ > and > > followed it closely much of his life. He considered himself a disciple of > > Jesus Christ even though he rejected the miracles of the Bible and he > > rejected the concept of the Deity of Jesus Christ. > > > > Now please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we can't come up > > with quotes for you from 'founding fathers' showing what they believed > about > > Jesus, but I think looking for quotes like this is a lot of work, and > > providing them does not give the whole picture. I'm going to be busy this > > weekend ministering at a men's prayer breakfast tomorrow morning, > preaching > > a parade route tomorrow evening, teaching Sunday School Sunday morning, > and > > ministering in a nursing home Sunday afternoon. Please don't expect me to > > do much homework for you in looking for these quotes. I'm not trying to > > snub you or be mean. I just have priorities in my life that make this > list > > a little low on the list. Please do not take it personal. > > > > I have to say that I have been disappointed in how some have taken my > posts > > way too personal. Such causes me to retreat if it appears to be chronic. > I > > apparently do not experience the frustration that some of you do in > > attempting to communicate and so I am a little slow in recognizing when > some > > have taken serious offense. I am considerin
Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians
Charm school? Are you kidding me? When it comes to this ya got everyone on TT beat hands down. Remember, Linda, I can read between lines. You are a charmer par excellent. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:00 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] American Indians Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians Do you remember which observation of mine you deemed to most perceptive I'd made on TT (something like 'only those who really 'get it do it')? Keep that in mind vis a vis yourself and David Miller. You've both shared from your lives. David's activities this weekend are indicative of a life being lived in the Spirit. You also. Linda (and David):IMO it is the admixture of political ideaology, rationalist philosophy, closed vs open-structured thinking, a harshness on some matters that is unbecoming and, not reflective of 'the Father Heart of God', sometimes more than a hint of dualism (a Greek vs Hebraic 'seeing' of God's Creation) that precipitates, even exacerbates a confrontational response from me.(Some others have, can and, will speak for themselves. They may wish to diagree with what I say here) Again, what little I read from you (both) of your lives would lead me to thank God for you (both). It is what you say and, the way that you say it ON SOME OCCASIONS, IMO inconsistent with your lives..Clear? Not clear? I'm not asking for you (both) to agree. I'm asking if ON OCCASION you see how you are so perceived? Lance, you openness is appreciated. I can only speak for myself. (David and I are actually quite different, but you only see the TT side of us, and seem to think we are very much alike.) But as for how people perceive me, yes, I DO realize that I am more than irritating to some folks. The unfortunate thing (for you) is that this doesnt really bother me. To me it is much more important to get it and do it than to be popular. It is more important to speak the truth (which is necessarily going to offend someone somewhere) than it is to compromise for the sake of the god of relationships. I have a clear understanding of what is right and wrong (for me at least) and Im not one to vacillate once Ive carefully thought things through and made up my mind. However, I am always on the lookout for new and valuable truths, or refinements upon current truths, that I can incorporate into my paradigm of life. Thats one reason I enjoy TT so much. Even more than than the people I get to know here, I love the opportunity to test and refine my belief system. The people who come off as hateful and against all that I love and believe do not offer me any new ideas, but they do help confirm the value of what I already know and believe to be true. Perhaps that is where you find me most frustrating. So you dont like the perceived harshness. Hummm. What do you suggest? Perhaps a class in tactfulness? Back to charm school? I guess, as I have admitted, I am rabidly loyalwhich sometimes requires digging in and fighting. My dualism bothers you? Im not even sure of what that means. Perhaps you can help me out here. You, Lance, are at times just as frustrating to me as I probably am to you. But you seem to be the most kind and least easily offended person in your camp so to speak. You also have a delightful sense of humor, and seem unthreatened enough by those of opposing philosophies to reach out a hand of friendship. For this I am grateful, as you have been a joy to know. (And I have no idea if this helps you at all.) J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I believe the 'thrust' of this post had more to do with 'compassion fatigue' than with what you wrote on. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 15:02 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag I resigned from the Salvation Army womens auxiliary after they compromised in San Francisco on the gay issues. I found it showed a basic flaw in what was most important to them; money over principle. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:30 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag I read the following this past week:'Compassion or Co-Dependence?:An Examination of Compassionate Christian Ministry in the 21st. Century From The Perspective of The Salvation Army'. This was a paper written by an officer in the Salvation Army presented at McMaster Divinity College. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 00:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag SADDLEBACKS 40 DAYS OF COMMUNITY TRANSFORMS COMMUNITYMore than 3,000 Saddleback Church small groups feed 40,000 of Orange Countys homeless and hungry for 40 days.Pure and undefiled religion is this>J
RE: [TruthTalk] American Indians
No one hates David Miller more than g, I believe. This has never changed in the many years I have been on TT. You can always count on him to come out and strike at any opportunity. (He’s just about as fond of me.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians Please leave off making questionable comments as to David's prophetic office. I solicited this information. David responded candidly (with a concern on his part). Cool it G!, please? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 11:43 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:09:04 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> ..propaganda spewed out about the American Indians.[..] makes it imperative to view them as enemies--which you said you do..see, the propaganda works well in materialzg your 'manifest destiny'; Rush's perspectiv, germane to this ongoing critq--quotd earlier in th week--defines your 'attitude/s' , a concept Lance pointd out today, wisely.. [also - thx Lance; to summarize and move ahead here, as abov, 'manifest destiny' is certainly a factor in (David's acceptance/production of ) Am. propaganda, not only about Indians, but about prophecy...also, apparently, his personal 'manifest destiny' lies in his 'prophetic office' devlopg the propaganda of prophecy--covering his tracks through history] (and, slade: 'ff.' is an acceptd abrev for 'following'--you may have figurd it out or been informd by now--regardless, there's a list of such abbreviations somewhere, e.g., at innglory.org..and, givn my horrid typg, abbreviatd style, feel free to ask about this stuff:) G
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
David Miller wrote: I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not as important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different outsides of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among Christians, we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking beer and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically assume that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't they?" I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one guy sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job and housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, he would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an unspoken thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really care about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I was like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at his side. One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and jobs and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to encourage me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, or have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a clean outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first thing this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to let you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits and the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians and then the Democrat Christians. There are not the Conservative Christians and then the Liberal Christians. God has called all of us to be one, to be Christian, regardless of our socio-economic status. Maybe we should focus upon that. I know John S. agrees because he wrote something along these lines recently. What do the rest of you think? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- I could have bought the whole package, but you had to put in the guy with the ear ring. :-) 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] American Indians
Thanks, Perry. This is one of the documents our family enjoys reading when we are blessed enough to be together over Thanksgiving. I also remember reading something by Lincoln. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians The First Thanksgiving Proclamation June 20, 1676: "The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions: The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ." >From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians >Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:09:04 -0500 > >David Miller wrote: >>>..the liberal propaganda spewed out about the American Indians. > >Gary wrote: >>myth (the recent TT analyses in question drew >>from Rush Limbaugh's Thanksgvg discourse) > >LOL. Stay on track, Gary. The liberal propaganda spewed out about the >American Indians is exactly what that discourse by Rush Limbaugh was about. >Following is an excerpt from Laura's email (11/25/2004 12:07 am) that >shared this with us. > >*** >When I was going to grade school and it was time to teach us about >Thanksgiving, the basic synopsis of what I was told was the Pilgrims >arrived at Plymouth Rock, a bunch of destitute white people. When they >arrived; they had no clue what to do, didn't know how to grow corn, didn't >know how to hunt, basically didn't know how to do anything. And if it >weren't for the Injuns who befriended them and gave them coats and skins >and taught them how to fish and shared their food and corn with them, the >Pilgrims wouldn't have survived and the Pilgrims thanked them by killing >them and taking over the country and bringing with them syphilis, >environmental destruction, racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia. > >That's basically the Thanksgiving story we were all raised with. The latter >part of that has been recently added as part of the politically correct >multicultural curriculum. But basically the story of Thanksgiving that we >all had was that the Pilgrims arrived, were basically inept, incompetent >white people, the Indians were very compassionate and nice and shared >everything that they had with them and for their thanks, the Pilgrims wiped >them out, created the cavalry and basically took over the country, stole it >from them, and then amen -- and so we all grew up thinking that that's what >happened. The Indians were great people but now they live on reservations >and how did this happen since they were so nice to us way back when. That's >not anywhere near the truth. It really is nowhere near the truth. I have >the real story in the book. >... >"Well, folks, let's allow our real undoctored American history lesson to >unfold further. If our schools and the media have twisted the historical >record when it comes to Columbus, they have obliterated the contributions >of America's earliest permanent settlers, the Pilgrims. Why? Because they >were a people inspired by p
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
It’s a bargain to understand God’s plan in founding America (in which YOU reside.) Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Oh. Perhaps I'll remove it. $8.00 for a discussion of Manifest Destiny is a bit much. (Maybe $0.99.) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, 04 December, 2004 11.05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Please allow me to back up and, take another run at this.The concept of 'manifest destiny' is outlined therein. If you're interested then, read it.I read it. I don't concur with the concept. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag your reasoning? On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:33:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: IMO no. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 3:57:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David:Have you read 'The Light and the Glory;? Do you subscribe to the heart of it's message. Do you believe God to be working in important and distinctive ways through your country throughout the world (including Iraq)? Lance -- recommended reading? JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I am. That's why I'm saving the eight bucks. That's money better spent on... say... Romans and the People of God N. T. Wright (Since I can't find Romans in a Week) What Saint Paul Really Said N. T. Wright -- slade -Original Message- From: Lance Muir Are you unfamiliar with the concept of 'manifest destiny'? -- "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] Trapped in the Flag
Another unbeliever. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Please allow me to back up and, take another run at this.The concept of 'manifest destiny' is outlined therein. If you're interested then, read it.I read it. I don't concur with the concept. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag your reasoning? On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:33:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: IMO no. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 10:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/4/2004 3:57:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David:Have you read 'The Light and the Glory;? Do you subscribe to the heart of it's message. Do you believe God to be working in important and distinctive ways through your country throughout the world (including Iraq)? Lance -- recommended reading? JD
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I think the basic argument here is not whether the Founders were all perfect Christians, but rather what was the intent of the Constitution and founding documents regarding God and Christianity. I believe that anyone who has read those documents w/o blinders on can see that they assumed that both were necessary elements in the success of America. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag For the time being just name the names of 'the signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence' IYO who both believed and lived the gospel.I do not mean to suggest that there were none only, that I do not know who they were. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 03, 2004 23:30 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag > Lance wrote: > > When many, if not all, on TT speak the name JESUS > > we understand IMMANUEL/GOD WITH US. How > > often did the 'founding fathers' actually speak His name? > > When they spoke of Him will you illustrate, with citations > > from their own writings, just what they meant? > > When we talk about the revolutionary war and the role of religion and > religious beliefs, I don't think we can only consider "founding fathers." > Sure, we can find quotes by some of the signers of the Constitution and > Declaration of Independence that indicate a faith in Jesus. Some of them > actually founded Bible societies, and I understand that Congress in 1777 > used funds to appropriate 20,000 Bibles. But the real role of believers is > not unlike today. They were not so much in the spotlight, and those who > were ranged from being like George Bush and Jimmy Carter to Richard Nixon > and Bill Clinton. Not exactly shining stars of evangelical Christianity. > > I studied this years ago and so I don't have references ready for you right > now, but I came away with an understanding that about a third of the people > of this country favored the revolutionary war. About another third were > against it. The final third were swayed one way or the other, and it was > the activity of the pulpits that played a big role in getting many in that > final third to support independence. For the most part these are not > 'founding fathers' per se, but important influences in society. > > There are a some elements in our society that try to make even Thomas > Jefferson and Ben Franklin evangelical Christians with quotes. This is > ludicrous. Such quotes are selective and often isolated and not considering > the whole man and everything he wrote. In the same vein, there are some > elements in our society that try to make it look like none of the founding > fathers were Christian. These quotes also are very selective and taken out > of context and not accurately evaluating the whole person. The truth is > that we had primarily secular men framing the Constitution who also > recognized the value of Christianity. For example, while Thomas Jefferson > was a Deist, he compiled his own diary of the teachings of Jesus Christ and > followed it closely much of his life. He considered himself a disciple of > Jesus Christ even though he rejected the miracles of the Bible and he > rejected the concept of the Deity of Jesus Christ. > > Now please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we can't come up > with quotes for you from 'founding fathers' showing what they believed about > Jesus, but I think looking for quotes like this is a lot of work, and > providing them does not give the whole picture. I'm going to be busy this > weekend ministering at a men's prayer breakfast tomorrow morning, preaching > a parade route tomorrow evening, teaching Sunday School Sunday morning, and > ministering in a nursing home Sunday afternoon. Please don't expect me to > do much homework for you in looking for these quotes. I'm not trying to > snub you or be mean. I just have priorities in my life that make this list > a little low on the list. Please do not take it personal. > > I have to say that I have been disappointed in how some have taken my posts > way too personal. Such causes me to retreat if it appears to be chronic. I > apparently do not experience the frustration that some of you do in > attempting to communicate and so I am a little slow in recognizing when some > have taken serious offense. I am considering a new rule for TruthTalk and > will be talking with Slade about it because we certainly do not seem to be > able to moderate ourselves. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be un
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
What if we are just more perceptive than you imagine, and both “read the heart of the writer” and understand what his real underlying agenda is—and reject it? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag NOT ALWAYS BUT ON OCCASION, I can read between the lines on everyone's posts. I'm going to go out on a limb here and, suggest that there are two (David and Linda) who do not seem to be able to 'read the heart' of a writer. This, if true, may be a partial contributing factor informing the acrimonious exchanges between them and SOME ON SOME OCCASIONS on TT. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 03, 2004 22:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag In a message dated 12/3/2004 2:44:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also understand that I cannot read between the lines of Bill's posts as well as someone like you because I have a different world view than he does while you and he share similar world views. What is your "world view" and how does it differ from Billy T's? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag
I resigned from the Salvation Army women’s auxiliary after they compromised in San Francisco on the gay issues. I found it showed a basic flaw in what was most important to them; money over principle. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag I read the following this past week:'Compassion or Co-Dependence?:An Examination of Compassionate Christian Ministry in the 21st. Century From The Perspective of The Salvation Army'. This was a paper written by an officer in the Salvation Army presented at McMaster Divinity College. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 04, 2004 00:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag SADDLEBACK’S 40 DAYS OF COMMUNITY TRANSFORMS COMMUNITY More than 3,000 Saddleback Church small groups feed 40,000 of Orange County’s homeless and hungry for 40 days. Pure and undefiled religion is this> J
Re: [TruthTalk] The role of religion in a secular society
Indeed, David, language is a blunt instrument.The word 'religion' is one worth spending some time on. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 03, 2004 23:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The role of religion in a secular society > Lance wrote: > > There is another, with which neither I nor the Scriptures agree. > > I believe that you occasionally confuse the two in your own usage. > > You offered a correction to Izzy some time back on this very distinction. > > Do you remember? > > Yes, I do remember. That was not a slip of the tongue. I often preach > against religion on the streets. "Religion is man's way of approaching God; > Jesus Christ is God's way of approaching man." This is because these night > club hoppers think that their Sunday morning church attendance saves them > even while they go out on the weekend and get drunk and fornicate. They > need someone to wake them up and tell them that their religion of > Christianity will not save them. > > On the other hand, when the context of our speech is political, the term > "religion" usually has a different connotation and so you will see me using > it in a different way to refer to practices of men that might actually > reflect a relationship with Jesus Christ. This is to separate Godly > practices from practices that come from atheistic viewpoints like Socialism > and Communism. The socialist ideology is very much like Christianity, but > its treatment of religion is very different. > > So depending on context, you will see me use the word "religion" in slightly > different ways. I'm sorry if that is a little confusing sometimes. > Language is not very precise. Sometimes we treat language as if it were > precise, and this can lead to arguments and strife. A man of God must never > enter into this kind of strife. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] American Indians
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] American Indians Do you remember which observation of mine you deemed to most perceptive I'd made on TT (something like 'only those who really 'get it do it')? Keep that in mind vis a vis yourself and David Miller. You've both shared from your lives. David's activities this weekend are indicative of a life being lived in the Spirit. You also. Linda (and David):IMO it is the admixture of political ideaology, rationalist philosophy, closed vs open-structured thinking, a harshness on some matters that is unbecoming and, not reflective of 'the Father Heart of God', sometimes more than a hint of dualism (a Greek vs Hebraic 'seeing' of God's Creation) that precipitates, even exacerbates a confrontational response from me.(Some others have, can and, will speak for themselves. They may wish to diagree with what I say here) Again, what little I read from you (both) of your lives would lead me to thank God for you (both). It is what you say and, the way that you say it ON SOME OCCASIONS, IMO inconsistent with your lives..Clear? Not clear? I'm not asking for you (both) to agree. I'm asking if ON OCCASION you see how you are so perceived? Lance, you openness is appreciated. I can only speak for myself. (David and I are actually quite different, but you only see the TT side of us, and seem to think we are very much alike.) But as for how people perceive me, yes, I DO realize that I am more than irritating to some folks. The unfortunate thing (for you) is that this doesn’t really bother me. To me it is much more important to “get it and do it” than to be popular. It is more important to speak the truth (which is necessarily going to offend someone somewhere) than it is to compromise for the sake of the god of “relationships”. I have a clear understanding of what is right and wrong (for me at least) and I’m not one to vacillate once I’ve carefully thought things through and made up my mind. However, I am always on the lookout for new and valuable truths, or refinements upon current truths, that I can incorporate into my paradigm of life. That’s one reason I enjoy TT so much. Even more than than the people I get to know here, I love the opportunity to test and refine my belief system. The people who come off as hateful and against all that I love and believe do not offer me any new ideas, but they do help confirm the value of what I already know and believe to be true. Perhaps that is where you find me most frustrating. So you don’t like the perceived “harshness”. Hummm. What do you suggest? Perhaps a class in tactfulness? Back to charm school? I guess, as I have admitted, I am rabidly loyal—which sometimes requires digging in and fighting. My “dualism” bothers you? I’m not even sure of what that means. Perhaps you can help me out here. You, Lance, are at times just as frustrating to me as I probably am to you. But you seem to be the most kind and least easily offended person in your “camp” so to speak. You also have a delightful sense of humor, and seem unthreatened enough by those of opposing philosophies to reach out a hand of friendship. For this I am grateful, as you have been a joy to know. (And I have no idea if this helps you at all.) J Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup
My initial response is to celebrate that which is of the Spirit of God in these anecdotes. He knows. I don't. My secondary response: I have a 'sense' that you, David, are much occupied with the 'outside of the cup'.That's just me and, I am often wrong. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 04, 2004 12:49 Subject: [TruthTalk] The Outside of the Cup > I've been reflecting recently about our differing perspectives of one > another here on TruthTalk. We have people on the list from various > backgrounds. As many of you know, cleaning the outside of the cup is not as > important as the inside of the cup. The Pharisees cleaned the outside but > not the inside, and Jesus rebuked that. > > On TruthTalk, we have a wide variety of people with very different outsides > of the cup. We have Christians and non-Christians. Even among Christians, > we have some on the list who have tattoos, smoke cigarettes, some are men > with long hair, and some are men who wear earrings, some enjoy drinking beer > and wine, some are poor, and some are overweight. This is all the outside > of the cup, but it might be difficult sometimes for people with different > outsides of the cup to relate to or receive from each other. I have seen > this many times in my work with the homeless and poor. Some of them will > look at me and think, "he is not at all like me." They automatically assume > that I hate them and would do no good thing for them. They immediately > distrust me and my motives because I have food and clothing to share with > them, I have money to put in their hands, I offer them housing and jobs. > They always think, "what is the catch. Guys like this hate us, don't they?" > > I always remember those individuals whose lives I have crossed who took > months or even years before they would let me help them. I remember one guy > sitting on a park bench who I always urged to let me help him get a job and > housing. He had a drug problem. I knew that. He knew if I helped him, he > would have to resolve that problem. We both knew that. It was an unspoken > thing. But this man always distrusted me, not because I did not really care > about him, but because he looked at the outside of the cup and thought I was > like the way Gary described, a man with money gathering slaves to be at his > side. > > One day he called me over to talk with him. No, he wasn't ready for me to > help him. He just wanted to tell me that he had watched me for two years. > At first, he thought I was just another guy trying to make a buck off the > poor. But he saw many of his friends helped and he saw my consistency in > reaching out to him, and he came to see that I really did care. He wanted > to make sure that I knew that he recognized the sincerity of my heart. It > touched him and he was crying as he told me that. I won't forget his > message to me. He said he use to be like the other guys who maligned me, > but now he was different. He saw that I really did care. > > I was sad that he only would take food and clothing but not housing and jobs > and a closer relationship. Nevertheless, his message continues to encourage > me. The outside of my cup is somewhat clean. I do not smoke, or drink, or > have tattoos, or do drugs, or any other such vices. None of this makes me > good, for all of this is not enough to enter the kingdom of God. > Nevertheless, in our culture with its overemphasis on grace, having a clean > outside can be somewhat of a stigma. People with a different kind of cup > are uncomfortable. I remember meeting with someone once and the first thing > this person said to me on the phone before we would meet was, "I want to let > you know that I smoke." Who cares? Why tell me that? I hope that we all > work at not focusing upon the outside of the cup and creating different > class systems of Christians. There are not the Christians in the suits and > the Christians who don't wear suits. There are not Republican Christians > and then the Democrat Christians. There are not the Conservative Christians > and then the Liberal Christians. God has called all of us to be one, to be > Christian, regardless of our socio-economic status. Maybe we should focus > upon that. I know John S. agrees because he wrote something along these > lines recently. What do the rest of you think? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every
