Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful self wouldeven be hereYou assume that Adam Eve would not have children, UNLESS they SINNED, because your IDEOLOGY says so.Butthey would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous. Is that what you
I wasn't there Blaine. If you don't like it, complain to God. He
ordered it, not me. I do, however, think it was a great idea. One of
the easiest commands to keep. ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to
the Fall?? What
Dave, are you nwext going to tell us that monkeys and hoses are your spirit
brothers, too? For that matter, what biblical evidence supports ANY of your
LDS theories?
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re
Blainerb:Ha! I agree, it was a good commandment!
But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into
mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Iwasn't there Blaine. If you don't
: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
Genesis 2:7 ...man became a living soul. This is only said of men. No where in the Bible will you find a reference to the soul of a horse or a monkey. Animals were not made to have eternal lives any more than trees or vines. They were created for man to use, to eat
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Actually, my youngest daughter (22 years old) has told me why she has decided
But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beingsI hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Blainerb:Ha! I agree, it was a good commandment! But why did they not have children until they
DAVEH: I think you missed the point, Perry. Terry said he wouldn't
speculate, in the same sentence in which he speculated. I found that
rather curious.don't you?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, are you nwext going to tell us that monkeys and hoses are your
spirit brothers, too?
3:24 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Actually, my youngest daughter (22 years old) has told me why she has decided to NOT hoime school her children .. and itis for much of the same reason as seen in the opening line below. She told m
In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why did they not have children until they were 1)
changed into mortal beings
I hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come NINE
Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb: Hmm, let's
of his own people
jd
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why did they not have
5 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2. and when Cain killed Able -- who was he afraid of -- I mean, where did those people come from? I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created. But that is not a popular opinio
being over protective through fear is one thing
DAVEH: That seems to be a tactic of some Christians. For instance,
the whole commonly believed scenario about hell being a literal
punitive torturous form of punishment is an example that I see driving
some people away from Christianity. I'm
Yes, I missed that point. Did you get mine?
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:41:24 -0800
DAVEH: I think you missed the point, Perry. Terry said he
Did they have navels like we have?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500
Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us --
which
DAVEH: It is not that I disagree with what you said below,
Judy.But, I think you've gone off topic. We are discussing
AE's transgression, not our own. As soon as they were cast out of
the Garden for their transgression, I think they pretty well knew they
had no grounds to accuse Him of
e me an ATHEIST !!
jd
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.com
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:40:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?
DAVEH: I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, despite
I'm sure that you really don't think I understand your perspective.
Let me say that I understand what you are saying very well, Terry. I
just don't think you understand my question (about the reason), as it
is based upon my
on this, Dave.
thanks,
Lance
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
Hansen
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 06, 2005 02:57
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
will you kindly tell all of us how
you, as a Mormon, understand
that the Holy Spirit gave Judy this thought is about to make me an ATHEIST !!
jd
-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:40:04 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
He wanted Adam a
This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have
been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to
accept.
God is omnicient, He knew they would sin. He did not plan
for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the fall. Big difference.
As to their
He did not plan
for them to fall.
DAVEH: If that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry?
Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the
fall, would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put
To test them DaveH. Faith is ALWAYS
tested.
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH: If that is
so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in
the Garden of Eden, Terry? Rather than
To test them DaveH
DAVEH: ??? Do you not think God knew their faith, Judy? Why do you
think God would need to test them, since he created themknowing
they would transgress?
Judy Taylor wrote:
To test them DaveH. Faith
is ALWAYS tested.
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800
He knew they would sin. He did not plan
for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the fall. Big difference.
DAVEH: I don't quite see the difference, Terry. However, I will
admit to being biased by my belief that He did plan
for them to fall.
As to their descendants missing the mark, who
God's desire was for them to remain pure and innocent, just as
would be
the desire of any father for his children.
DAVEH: I probably shouldn't intrude on Blaine's discussion with you,
Terry. But, it seems to me that God could easily have kept AE pure
and innocent, had he wanted to do so. For
I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had
not they would have saved themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery
that has been the human lot since then. Why would the Lord
want that for them/us?
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:09:38 -0800 Dave Hansen
Christ's consideration -- even if he is concerned with but a single consideration of law (thou shalt not eat) and, in time, man will validate that truth. jd -Original
Message-From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:0
God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no
matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times I
am given that option. God will give you the option, but it is not His
desire. I think that must be one of the toughest parts of being God,
wanting what
teaching. And on
PLEASE SUPPLY THE REAL DEAL! I'm quite serious on
this, Dave.
thanks,
Lance
- Original Message -
From:
Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 06, 2005 02:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--AE
will you kindly tell all
Hi , Dave. -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:28:59 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
DAVEH: As I see it, most traditional Christians believe that God wanted AE to not transgress, effectively leaving
In a message dated 12/5/2005 11:25:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't knowif it surprises me.
But, I do not think we have given enough attention todeveloping a
thorough understanding of their existence before and after
the"fall." It seems tome
In a message dated 12/5/2005 6:15:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just the
facts, Dave. Fact one: Adam and Eve did sin.Fact two: God hates sin.
Fact three: Getting people to sin is the top priority of Satan.It's
over. We know who to blame. Nothing to
God's desire was for them to remain pure and innocent, just as would be
the desire of any father for his children. The tree was there to give
them a choice. We always have a choice to make. If eating the fruit
of that tree gave you the ability to know good from evil, what else
would you call
Mormons are Obsessed with the Fall![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/5/2005 11:25:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't knowif it surprises me. But, I do not think we have given enough attention todeveloping a thorough understanding of their
God wants mormons to sin, so dont
argue with them. iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005
9:18 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--AE
God's desire was for them
He wanted Adam and Eve to
ruin it for everyone?
if they had not they would have saved
themselves and the rest of
humanity all of the heartache, suffering,
and misery that has been the human lot since then.
DAVEH: Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one
facet of the AE
No.Actually, I have never heard this question discussed
DAVEH: That rather surprises me. I remember asking Perry a
similar question sometime ago, and he blew me off. That rather
surprised me at the time, but I did not pursue it.
As I understand, most Christians (including Protestants, RCC
DAVEH: Do you know why it doesn't, Izzy?
ShieldsFamily wrote:
In a word:
No.
DAVEH: May I suggest another
topic of interest
to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would
have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed.
You have brought this up in the past on TT DaveH but it
didn't last long because there is no place to go with it.
By definition all anyone could come up with is their
own speculation. God wasn't caught blindsided. He knew
and prepared for this "BEFORE the foundation of the
world" so it's too
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 05, 2005 07:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--AE
You have brought this up in the past on TT DaveH but
it didn't last long because there is no place to go with it.
By definition all anyone could
Just the facts, Dave. Fact one: Adam and Eve did sin.
Fact two: God hates sin.
Fact three: Getting people to sin is the top priority of Satan.
It's over. We know who to blame. Nothing to discuss.
Dave Hansen wrote:
No.Actually, I have never heard this question discussed
DAVEH:
Because it is a hypothetical question and
we have better things to think about???
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005
2:09 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--AE
er apart from Christ's consideration -- even if he is concerned with but a single consideration of law (thou shalt not eat) and, in time, man will validate that truth.
jd
-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:0
???From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dave HansenSent: Monday, December 05, 2005 2:09 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AEDAVEH: Do you know why it doesn't, Izzy?ShieldsFamily wrote: In a word: No. DAVEH: May I suggest
e Christ (our Creator). Man is a sinner apart from Christ's consideration -- even if he is concerned with but a single consideration of law (thou shalt not eat) and, in time, man will validate that truth. jd -Original
Message-From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.comTo:
DAVEH: One more fact from your perspective, Terry.I assume
you believe that God did not want AE to sin though, even though he
knew they would. Is that correct?
Terry Clifton wrote:
Just the facts, Dave. Fact one: Adam and Eve did sin.
Fact two: God hates sin.
Fact three:
Do you mind if I ask why this subject is so
interesting to you??
DAVEH: Because the Protestant view seems rather narrow and lacks depth
of understanding, as I understand it. I don't mean that to sound
offensive, but rather an observation from what I've learned from asking
you folks about it.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hansen dave@langlitz.com
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:06:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
No.Actually,
I have never heard this question discussed
DAVEH: That rather
surprises me. I remember asking Perry a
@mail.innglory.org
Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 05, 2005 07:34
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
You have brought this up in the past on
TT DaveH but it didn't last long because there is no place to go with
it.
By definition all anyone
No.Actually, I have never heard this question discussed. You asked me to comment on a question -- perhaps a week ago, now. Aaaahh, was it "were A E predestined to sin?
jd-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 04 Dec 2005
maybeSatan's
rebellious proactivity (in that biblical historical contxt) would have taken a
diff destructive form, perhaps elsewhere
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:52:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed.
||
In a word: No.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005
8:42 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [TruthTalk] New
Subject--AE
DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest
to me? I am curious as to
Blainerb: By "elsewhere," you mean, like on Venus, or are we still
talking about mother Earth?
In a message dated 12/4/2005 8:27:35 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
maybeSatan's rebellious proactivity (in that biblical
historical contxt) would have taken a diff
Interesting Subject, if one looks into it,proof positivethat the CHARACTER of the LDS god is not the same CHARACTER as the God of the Bible.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what
famous quoutes I am just here to learn AND teach a little LDS DOCTRINE!!!http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/people/adam_lds_eom.htmThe Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Michael, spoken of in the Bible (Dan. 10:13; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7), is Adam. In his premortal life, Adam
LOL New Subject? http://www.mail-archive.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?method=andformat=shortconfig=truthtalk_mail_innglory_orgrestrict=exclude=words=adam+transgressedDave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks
..'elsewhere'unknown, (yet) 'elsewhere'
knowable
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:34:21 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Blainerb: By "elsewhere," you mean..
||
D]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:33:40 -0500Subject: (no subject)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Infallibility
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:33:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-
David -- why did you send this to me? I am mising something. -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:38:24 AM Eastern Daylight TimeSubject: (no subject)
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation
To be
honest...that's one of things that kept me away from reading the
posts.
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jonathan
HughesSent: Thursday, 30 December, 2004 07.37To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk]
on'.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 29, 2004 19:11
Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Judy's Plagiarism
In a
message dated 12/29/2004 3:50:22 PM Pacific Standard
Jonathan Hughes wrote:
The next
person who writes a post with the
subject title Judys Plagiarism will be subject to my
wrath. The topic was concluded days ago. Please remember that the
contents of
ones post should coordinate with the content of the subject line.
And I am
Judy,
Although you are neither stumbled nor
offended you are entirely naive. It is shocking how you attempt to
wrestle away any responsibility for your posts, for your tone, for the strife
you have caused. At some point in your life you may need to take
seriously what others think about
As I see it, Bill is a litle too thin skinned. Having said that, I must add the belief that the observation really doesn't matter much if offense has been taken. I felt Jonathan was not only too thin skinned but wrong in how he understood some of my comments. But clearly, he was offended. How I
Hi Judy,
I have a book entitled Adventures
in Missing the Point by Brian McClaren and Tony Campolo. Although
I doubt you would enjoy the book I love the title. It is no secret that
you have had run-ins with nearly every single person on this forum. Can
we all be so wrong? Please tell me
Jonathan Hughes wrote:
Hi Judy,
I have a
book entitled Adventures
in Missing the Point by Brian McClaren and Tony Campolo. Although
I doubt you would enjoy the book I love the title. It is no secret
that
you have had run-ins with nearly every single person on this forum.
Sorry about the transmission. I neither wrote the piece in blue and underlined, but it actually had paragraphs and the like. The wording is the same, however so all is not bad (apart from the paper itself).
John
In a message dated 7/27/2004 11:12:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL
EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, 28 July, 2004
02:28To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
subject)Sorry about the
transmission. I neither wrote the piece in blue and underlined, but it
act
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill, you wanted to see where I was going with this "image" thing.
Here it is. Krugers idea regarding "fellowship" as being the very
essence of God has nearly force these ideas into my thinking and the
result is as follows:
(for some reason I cannot change the
In a message dated 7/28/2004 2:27:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason it's blue and underlined is because it's one great big link to send email to TruthTalk. Should this ever happen again, convert your email to PLAIN TEXT (found under "Format" at the top of the
In a message dated 7/28/2004 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having said that, I think you may have unwittingly put God in a box by assuming that He always wants His followers (or his animals) in continual close contact. Abraham was a nomad, not a member of a
John, this is absolutely wonderful. You are very
much on the mark! I am glad you've had the opportunity to listen to Kruger and
see that he is not the bad man that some among us may imagine. Yes, as with all
that is good, fellowship finds it source in the heart of God: Father, Son, and
Holy
Jesus left the crowds he did not leave these things behind. He kept them fully
intact, presenting them whole to his Father.
Bill
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 7:52
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
Peace to you, Judy. You do not read for
understanding. If you did, you would understand what I say below by the things I
have said many times before.Nope, yours is a different ambition. You read
only to find something you canuse to stir up strife. Well, guess what?
Peace to you. I'm not
DAVEH: Sorry to take so long getting back to this, Perry. Seems like
there is always more pressing things with which to deal.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, do you think these two verses
are referring to the same thing, or to different things? How does this
affect your understanding of 1
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, do you think these two verses are referring to the
same thing, or to different things?
DAVEH: I don't know, Perry. I received it just before I had to go to
work this morning. I got home (picked up nephew Jeff at the airport
this evening) tonight at nearly
DavidH wrote:
I do intend to do some studying of the passage when I get time. I simply
don't have the time to deal with it right now.
Excellent. I look forward to hearing from you on this when you get the time.
I gave you a nod to the effect that you produced some viable evidence that
I intend
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DavidH wrote:
I do intend to do some studying of the
passage when I get time. I simply don't have the time to deal with it
right now.
Excellent. I look forward to hearing from you on this when you get the
time.
I gave you a nod to
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
The Holy Spirit put the words in Paul's
mouth...I just read them. Are you calling me the Holy Spirit? :-)
DAVEH: That's what I find interesting about learning what you think,
Perry. The Lord's servants were divinely inspired, but I wonder
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DavidH, read Ephesians 2:1. Reconcile it with 1 Peter 4:5. Are they
referring to the same thing, or to different things?
DAVEH: Very good, Perry. There is some evidence to support your
beliefs..Thank you for sharing it!
In Peter 4:6, I believe that the 'dead'
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
So, all are without excuse. It is not
necessary that one has heard the gospel to face the judgement, or to be
redeemed, for that matter. It appears that ALL have had the opportunity
to know and worship God, either through the gospel, or for Paul's
stated
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
So, all are without excuse. It is not necessary that one has heard
the gospel to face the judgement, or to be redeemed, for that matter. It
appears that ALL have had the opportunity to know and worship God,
either through the gospel, or
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
After reading vss 15ff..., I just
don't see why you think these apply. When vs 18 says /all/, it is
referring to/ ungodliness/ and /unrighteousness/. That is distinctly
different from *those *who are ungodly or unrighteous. As vs 16
infers, salvation is
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After reading vss 15ff..., I just don't see why you think these
apply. When vs 18 says /all/, it is referring to/ ungodliness/ and
/unrighteousness/. That is distinctly different from *those *who are
ungodly or unrighteous. As vs 16 infers, salvation is
Lance Muir wrote:
1. yes 2. no 3. no
DAVEH: Thanx for your direct answer, Lance. May I question you a bit
further.
1) Do you believe all men will have the opportunity to accept Jesus?
2) Do you believe there are any mortals who do not get that chance
while in mortality?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
1) Do you believe all men will have the opportunity to accept Jesus?
No.
2) Do you believe there are any mortals who
do not get that chance while in mortality?
1. yes 2. no
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 04, 2004 02:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
subject)
Lance Muir wrote:
1. yes 2. no 3. noDAVEH: Thanx for your
direct answer, Lance. May I question you a bit further.
1
Spirit, with themselves. It just doesn't happen. I believe that many live
in denial of this apparent reality.
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 04, 2004 02:57
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
subject)
Lance Muir wrote:
1. yes 2. no 3
If it wasn't my response should have been: 1. yes
2. no 3. no
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 04, 2004 03:25
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
subject)
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles
himself
evident to everyone, first by that which is manifest in them and, second, He
is made evident in His creation.
Perry
From: Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:41:39 -0400
Perry
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After reading vss 15ff..., I just don't see why you think these
apply. When vs 18 says /all/, it is referring to/ ungodliness/ and
/unrighteousness/. That is distinctly different from *those *who are
ungodly or unrighteous. As vs 16 infers, salvation is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/2/2004 11:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH:
Ignore for a moment your concern for a second chance after
death. (That is a different discussion, Laura.) Do you believe those
who do not have the chance to
if they do not hear from US they will hear from
HIM.
- Original Message -
From:
Dave
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 03, 2004 09:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no
subject)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/2/2004 11:34:28 PM Central
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
In Romans 1:17ff Paul says The just shall live by faith. For the
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
1. yes 2. no 3. no
- Original Message -
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 03, 2004 10:37
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] (no subject)
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
In Romans 1:17ff Paul says The just shall live by faith. For the
wrath of God is revealed from
DAVEH wrote: ??? How can you perceive it as a second chance IF they
never had a first chance prior??? Let me ask it this way, Laura..do
you think God gives everybody a FIRST chance to hear the gospel and accept
Jesus? IOW..do you think there are any mortals who never had the
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
In Romans 1:17ff Paul says The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be
known of God is
Perry.
Can you explain to me why you believe this particular passage in Romans is
referring to the Gospel?
-- slade
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
Sent: Thursday, 03 June, 2004 09:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: I'm hung up on it because I find the popular Christian
perception to be very interesting. To me it is obviously symbolic, but
to most Christians it seems to be a literal lake of fire. Yet (to me)
it seems so illogical.That a loving God would
101 - 200 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
