|
LOL!! David: When you were a kid (a week or two
back), did the other kids tend to make fun of you only to find you correcting
their grammar? DAVID, DAVID, DAVID. YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW YOU ARE
PERCEIVED!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 24, 2005 14:01
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and
Street Preachers
In a message dated 2/24/2005 7:07:48 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
John wrote:
>I said something to this effect: "You are
so
>transparent but I will be glad to share .......
>When this
word "but" is used in the context
>of my statement, no reasonable
person would
>fail to understand the contrast being made,
David.
Oh, so now I am an unreasonable person? Nice spin, John.
What you wrote
was:
>>David -- you are so
very transparent. But I will
>>be glad to share.
I do not believe in street evangelism
>>for a number of reasons, by
the way. But, before
>>I came to that decision, I
preached on the campus
>>of College of the Siskyous
[sp].
First, let me point out that you are a very poor writer.
Never claimed to be anything special. I'm not trying to
offend you. Can't imagine why you would think otherwise.
I am speaking soberly about this accusation against me that
something is wrong with my ability to understand you. Soooooooooo,
you were sober when you wrote this post?! You do not
use
conjunctive words in the proper way generally taught in high school
and
college grammars. Took a creative writing course in junior
college. Made a pretty good grade, I might add. But
maybe it has been down hill since then. I have to guess a
lot about what you are actually trying
to say, and I am not the kind of
person that readily reads evil insults into
the writings of others.
Yes and there really might be a "pristine bullet." If it
can go either way, I try to give the benefit
of the doubt on the good
side rather than the evil. In this case, you had
two separate
sentences. Depends on the grammatical impact of "But .."It
appears that you were trying to make an
observation, that I am
transparent, then shift to getting back on the
subject, which is that
you would be glad to share. And, so the use of "But
.." It is sad that you think
I am dishonest for deciding to read you in this way. I said
that? Notice that your third
sentence here, "But, before
I came to that decision," does not utilize the
conjunction "But" to
negate what you just said before. I took the previous
"But" in the
same way, being a word you use when your thoughts jump forward
and
backward chronologically without any apparent rhyme or reason. "But" this
and "but" that --- too much cleavage for me. Shall
we move on? My
English teachers taught me that people
who do this are using the words
incorrectly, as verbal pauses, while
they try to collect their thoughts. And when one is writing,
"verbal pause" is more often occasioned with
a-scriptos.
Although I was taught not to write this way, I
have to interact with people
like you who do it. Ah, the King
and the commoner.I try to ignore the difficulties and get to the meat of
what is being said. I"m waiting. ......... It
seemed to me that you were going to say something
about my transparency
(something which I work hard to be... my life is an
open book and I try
to be transparent and without guile to everyone), but
then you decided
that you needed to get back to sharing about the questions
I asked
concerning your experience with evangelism. The part that stood out
to me was, "I will be glad to share." Now I am saddened to learn
that you
really didn't mean this, but you meant to take a poke at me
being
"transparent," meaning that you perceived evil intentions on my
part which
were never really there. Plausible denial and the
subtleties of "good intentions" often go hand in hand. I
still want to learn about your early campus
preaching days. Did
you do it only once? Twice? What kind of experience
do you have
that gives you a foundation upon which to reject it? What are
some
of the specifics of your experience that led you to reject it? My
opposition to street preaching (whether on campus or on the street) is very
much the same as nearly every pastor in the city of
Fresno. Sometime, when removed from the emotion of this
post, we might delve into the matter. Now is not the time.
John wrote:
>You should get out of the reading
business
>if this is not clear to you.
I am seriously
considering not reading your posts anymore. You have no
mercy
towards those who cannot understand what you are trying to say. Amongst
humanoids, mercy attracts mercy. Maybe it should not be this
way -- but I have found that, usually, people respect that
which they project. A sweet little old lady gets a sweet
little old Me. A tough talking goat roper gets a frank and
"tough talking" Me Again. There are other considerations in regard to
our disagreement.
John wrote:
>I would have
let it go except that you seemed
>to be quoting me against Lance in
order to make
>your point. That is what you were
doing.
>Gathering evidence against Lance. And you
made
>the big mistake of including me -- the
man of
>logic and practical argumentation. Perhaps
you
>will think twice next time :-)
You are the man of
logic and practical argumentation? LOL. Ok.... Good for
you -- I was kidding and you caught that.
:-)
What I was doing was NOT gathering evidence AGAINST
Lance. I do not have
this combative, fighting personality against
individuals on this list. As I
have said before, from my
perspective, you and I agree about 90% of the
time. I know you have
said this, but it could not be further from the truth. Nearly all of
your posts to me are criticisms of something that I have said.
That is a fact and easily verifiable. And that is not a
complaint. This is a discussion group and I welcome
disagreement. From your perspective, you and I agree
about 10% of the time. The
combative, argumentative nature is
coming from you and you are projecting it
upon me where it does not
belong. Could be some truth in this. I took your
statement that you were "glad
to share" to be a good example for
Lance. I was encouraging Lance to be
good, using your statement as
a positive statement in the right direction
for this discussion list.
Its called "collecting evidence." Now you make it clear
that you didn't mean it.
John wrote:
>One additional comment,
David. When you
>used my comment against Lance,
It
was not AGAINST Lance. It was to help him see the attitude of being
glad
to share that I hoped he would take upon him. I still desire
him to take
that attitude, but now I desire for you to take that
attitude too, in
sincerity rather than hypocrisy and guile.
Specifically, David, what words were full of "hypocrisy and
guile?" Perhaps I need to up-grade a bit.
John
wrote:
>you conveniently misquoted the comment.
I did
not. I quoted you exactly right. You are the one who misquoted
yourself in this post, even prefacing it with, "I said something to this
effect..." You most definitely misquoted me and it is in
black and white. You left off "But .." and preceded with your post to
Lance. So try a different argument -- not one that
is demonstrably off the mark.
John wrote:
>You
do this often -- misquoting, changing the
>order of
statements -- that sort of thing, like
>we will not
notice. My sentence began with
>the contrasting
"But." You dropped it intentionally
>to make a very
different point. Sad indeed.
I believed what you wrote was
good, and if you had meant it, it would have
been good. I'm glad I
quoted you as I did, Is this some kind of admission -- "I am
glad I quoted you as I did"? because it has exposed
the guile
in your heart and the insincerity of your words.
John
wrote:
>Those questions left unanswered had
>no
answer.
One of those questions was, "When you did it before, how much
did you do
it?" How can you possibly assert that this question
does not have an
answer? Can't you ball park it, like, "I preached
once... here's what
happened..." or "I preached every day for a
semester, here's what
happened..." or "I preached for the entire four
years I was there at least
twice a week and here's what
happened..."?
John wrote:
>In fact, I answered more questions
than you
>are willing to answer. Need I remind you
of
>your comment to the effect that you were not
>going to be
answering questions about your
>spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing,
out of body
>experiences and raising the dead)?
You apparently
misunderstood me, John. I have never declined to answer
questions
about these subjects. I just hope you don't expect me to try and
prove testimonies. A testimony is just that... a testimony. I
rest my case.
John wrote:
>David, I know when one is
concerned for me and
>when one is only interested in
inquisition.
Apparently you do not. If you think I am
interested in some inquisition,
you are dead wrong. There is no
doubt that my questions were meant to
satisfy my intellectual curiosity
and would benefit me rather than you, but
there is no malevolent
attitude on my part at all. This is an opportunity
for you to give
instead of receive.
John wrote:
>>>... are no more
involved with successful ministry
>>>than a host of others
-- including myself.
David Miller wrote:
>>What
do you mean? Are you implying that none
>>of us are involved
in successful ministry, or are
>>you trying to imply that everyone
here is involved
>>with successful ministry?
John
wrote:
>I do not regard this as an honest question.
>You offer
an option when, in fact, my question
>can be understood in only one
way, by reasonable
>people. Your first "option" would
reflect poorly on
>me, as a minister of the gospel of Grace as well
as
>my friends..........not much of an option.
I guess I should
have known that you would never say anything that would
reflect poorly
upon yourself. It is just with your doctrine of how you are
a
miserable worthless sinner who continues to fall short of God's glory
every day, and your history of being ex-campus preacher, ex-pastor,
ex-student, ex-just about everything, You forgot "ex-friend"
I really was not sure what you meant.
Thanks for the
clarification. I'll have to figure out how you are involved
in
successful ministry while continuing to sin and continually falling short
of the glory of God. You do it. So can I
That is a huge paradox for me. Absolutely
David
Miller wrote:
>>I expressed an interest in you and your
ministry
>>experience, but you don't care about
anybody
>>but yourself.
John wrote:
>Just because my
first wife would agree
>doesn't make it so.
Or maybe your
ex-wife knows something about her ex-husband that we all are
just
finding out. Could be. Time will tell.
I'm seriously considering divorcing you myself, John. What
I mean is that
you think I should get out of the reading business based
upon my
misunderstanding of what you wrote, so maybe I should stop
reading your
posts. What do you think? Well, I do not
have any thoughts on that, David. This is a discussion
group. You have previously made fun of those (me) who were
"whimps" and even dishonest in their presentations. Now that I am
being honest but without name calling and such, you express
displeasure in that, as well. Do you think this would
be best? Should I
filter out posts from you into my delete
folder? Please let me know if you
think this would be
best. Why would you ask this of me? Is
there some reason why I should not disagree with you. If I do
not trust in some of your motive, should I cover it up, pretend that it is
not there? You are a brother in Christ and in need of some
correction. I am the man called to that purpose,
apparently. How can I fulfill my purpose if you
delete? But enough of this personal
stuff. Let's get back to the business of this forum.
JD
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
|
