David
M was getting frustrated with me because I wouldn't give him a "straight answer"
to his passive/active question (like the only answer had to be active
or passive; like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife").
I was referring to his reaction to my "nonanswer" which in reality was the only
right answer because of the structure of his question.
--
slade
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 11/23/2004 2:50:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2004 10.07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant
The logic you used in this post, John, is why I said it was a matter of perspective whether the covenant requires passive or active participation on Avraham's part. It's a matter of HOW one looks at the data and what data they choose to incorporate. It was not an attempt on my part to dodge the issue or to intentionally frustrate David M. The whole basis of my unwillingness to pin down an absolute answer is in the understanding that god GAVE the covenant promise to Avraham. This indicates ABSOLUTE passivity on Avraham's part. Avraham obeyed God's Word and this indicates active participation.
- slade
Slade, I hope you are not being desensive because of something I said. I could not agree more with your words above.
As is the case in all honest disagreements (if, in fact, we are disagreeing), perspective is the reason. But I do not cast "perspective" as the "bad guy" because it is shared perspective that presents the possibility for growth. I have enjoyed your and Jeffs stay on this forum for exactly that reason.
Gotta go.
John
