-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:12:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: > That is true -- hopefully you will come to > see your complicity in the problem, as well. I have always maintained that I have violated the no ad hominem rule also and that I have to work hard at not doing it. One reason I like to have someone other than myself moderate the list is so they can help keep me in line. :-) You are a legalist, David. Well meaning, of course. As such, there is no way of
convicting you of your complicity apart from your willingness to stop with the game and cast the beam
from your eye. David Miller wrote: >> Lance mentioned about the importance of framing questions >> rather than answers, and that was what I was doing when >> I asked you to define your terms. John wrote: > That is not what you were doing, at all. You were busy > trying to convince who knows who that I was functioning > from a perspective of doubt and unbelief. I think I know my motivations better than you do. Don't like it when one turns the table?
I still believe that you don't see us included in the Johanian passage we were discussing because of doubt and unbelief concerning the kingdom authority conveyed in that passage. John 22 ? No I don't. Nor do I include us in Mark 16:17ffff John wrote: > If you hadn't misrepresented what I wrote, you would > have made some progress. I quoted you exactly as you wrote it
I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order.
You wrote: "You claim we can't know anything" You can't see the differen. Trying counting the words.
You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period. We have played this game before. I absolutely
knew we were going to come to this intersection. This time, I printed out the related posts, Daivd.
Repent. Or , at least stop playing this game with me.
and conveyed the garbled message that came across to me from that. I also acknowledged that this could not possibly be what you meant, and so I suggested that you must have a different understanding of the words we were using. I asked you to define your terms and attempt to communicate what appeared to be contradictions in your post. More make believe, David. Compare your false review (above) with the actual post (below).
Here is exactly what you actually said: I would like to discuss this subject further, but cannot
until you define the terms doubt, unbelief, knowledge, faith and explain the relationship between
doubt and unbelief to knowledge and faith. There are connections between these words that are
important for how I understand our relationship to the Word. Beginning with "I also ackowledged ...,"
there is next to nothing in those two sentences of yours in the original post that speaks to your
< FONT color=#ff0000>false rewrite in this second post. Where do you say that I did not mean what I wrote? Where do you
suggest that we have different meanings (implying that you already know my definitions). Where do
ask me to relieve apparent contradictions?
John wrote: > But that is how you do business with me. You take these matters way too personal. I take them as they are written. 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.
