His recurring question was "did you see what I did
there"?
This was when he took something and turned it on
its head thus making
convoluted that which was essentially clear prior
to his doing his "thing".
jt: Are you describing sleight
of hand? I'm not familiar with Mr. Saturday Night.
Not only did I see what you did there, Judy, but
anyone capable of reading
also saw. Comic relief, even when unintended (or
whas it?) can be pleasant
can it not?? Thanks for the smile. Lance
jt: I have no idea what you are talking about or for
that matter
what you are smiling about. Would you let me in on the
joke?
Whether you believe it or not I am serious about
these things;
I am not out to to engender strife, nor is my
motive to get the
best of anyone. So what did I do???
When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine
communication takes
place. Citing scripture even when both
persons are Christians, is no
guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth.
jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more
sense for us to gather around God's Word
than the thoughts of these
university professors and theologians? Especially
since there is just ONE mediator
between God and man.
Neither need be described as dumb, intractible,
malicious etc.
Examples of this abound on TT. Lance
jt: Are you saying that examples of
ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance?
I ask because I am not sure what
you mean?
judyt
Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on
SvsM
It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it
that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the
distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance. -----
jt: You have no idea what I mean when I say things Lance.
If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker
punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list;
and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween S&S
Why do I need to? judyt
Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs
Meaning
This is what is wrong with the professing Church
and has been for generations; smart men (after
the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If
little children can understand then so can
we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom
of theologians rather than renewed by
God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors
at different Universities. Do you
honestly think that ppl on this list will buy these books and read their ramblings on theology and
linguistics in order to understand what you are saying?
Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy
Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no
respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is
humble and subjects his natural reasoning to
God and His Word. judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No syntax contains its own semantics. Without
overlapping meaning
no "meaningful" communication takes
place.
Judy, if you will
go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first
time since coming to this list that we were actually getting along
with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever
it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on
the other. Last night (in my time zone) you involved yourself in
two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you
took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to
something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing;
in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did
you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not
saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome
the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would
like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you
familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't
come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some
misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should
ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a
day.
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult
to understand, why aren't you being
a little more cautious about jumping in
the middle of conversations I am having
with someone else? Why not stay away from
those conversations? You obviously
know there is a great
potential for greater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem
is not so much with the words I'm using,
but the ones you use.
jt: Maybe because it's a
public list and it is about Truth which is something I am
interested in. IMO private parties and
private conversations should go off list along
with demeaning and critical comments.
It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas
and another to attack their
person. Do you consider your ideas, Polanyi's and
Newbigin's sacred
Bill? judyt
If you had
been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking
questions, Judy.
BT
jt
says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you
asking if it is OK to
add to or
subtract from God's Word? I know you
would not call it that but I've
heard
so much about wordsmithing in recent
days - what's wrong with calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
Judy, What's wrong with waiting until
I have actually said what I wanted to say?
I very explicitly and nicely asked
you to please hold off judgment on this until I
had actually written
something. Why were you unwilling to do this?
jt: I did not see that
it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as
the
other. In fact, I
have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are
saying
most of the
time. Do you consider asking a question the same as
making
a
judgment? jt
Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you
say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language
part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of
the things others have been saying. I wonder if we
have been doing this all along and this is why there is such
confusion. bt: Perhaps, to
some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I
would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get
a chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be
exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for
a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words
spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh
language. Please
be patient,
Bill
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 26,
2004 8:03 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] God in
our unconscious
jt: Let me try and get this straight.
Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or
subtract from God's Word? I know you
would not call it that but I've heard
so much about wordsmithing in recent
days - what's wrong with calling
things what God has called them in His
Words?
Is there room in the professing church for a
convergence of sorts between
God's spoken words and words spoken about God,
still his but expressed in fresh language.
John:
I would say absolutely not.
True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church
fragmented
by thousands of years of
bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of
"truth."
What are there --
400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the
professing
church.
Thank God for grace and the
eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb.
jt: So long as God is
still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding
is not
the victim of
anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why
do you say that
God's grace and the
blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think
that
God will
validate all of the things you mention above
anyway? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, now that that's settled I
guess we can get back to real fellowship.
Whose turn is it to bring the meat
loaf?
|