Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Imagine that, not even looking for God at all, in the wrong places he met Jesus In an Acid Trip?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I don't know about Van Halen, but my friend was tripping on acid, yes. When he saw the blond haired big man coming toward him he fell to his knees and started begging the Lord's forgiveness. Everyone around him was standing, so he stayed on his knees and crawled through the crowd, hiding from the big man. When he got to the exit he stood up and headedfor the parking lot, not looking back. As far as I know, he has never looked back. He is very active now in Campus Crusade for Christ in Colorado Springs, CO,ministering to teenagers. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird For some it is the Grateful Dead, for others it was Van Halen! Were these guys doing acid?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the ear
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Judy wrote: there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate. Let me take a stab at it. John 1:1-3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3 KJV) The Greek word used in this passage and translated Word is logos. It means much more than just word. It includes the concept of reasoning itself, and also refers to the actual idea and understanding. Our English words attach logos to the end of words that signify disciplines of study. Hence, bio-logy is the study of life (logos=study of, bio=life) and psychology is the study of the mind (logos=study of, psyche=mind). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that if Jesus is the Logos and Jesus is the Truth, then all studies are something that participates with Jesus Christ. ALL THINGS were made by Jesus Christ, and without him was not anything made that was made. Therefore, disciplines of study like biology and psychology, while in actuality being mere child's play, is in fact touching Christ. You may not be able to relate to them, but perhaps that is simply because it is a part of Christ that you have not yet seen. It is as if you are looking at one side of a coin while others observe the other side of the coin. Try as you might to convince the others that they are describing the coin incorrectly, they know what they are looking at. Maybe it is time for you to consider that they truly are describing a side of the coin that is hidden from you. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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.
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
How about some BIBLIOLOGY!David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: there is no way I can relate to all the philosophy, enlightenment teaching, the Nicene fathers, et al in your head Bill. but I am a student of God's Word and what I write is either Truth or it is not. If you can show me by God's Word where I am wrong - then hopefully we can start to communicate.Let me take a stab at it. John 1:1-3."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Wordwas God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made byhim; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3KJV)The Greek word used in this passage and translated "Word" is "logos."It means much more than just "word." It includes the concept ofreasoning itself, and also refers to the actual idea and understanding.Our English words attach "logos" to the end of words that signifydisciplines of study. Hence, "bio-logy" is the study of life(logos=study of, bio=life) and psychology is the study of the mind(logos=study of, psyche=mind). Therefore, it seems reasonable toconclude that if Jesus is the Logos and Jesus is the Truth, then allstudies are something that participates with Jesus Christ. ALL THINGSwere made by Jesus Christ, and without him was not anything made thatwas made. Therefore, disciplines of study like biology and psychology,while in actuality being mere child's play, is in fact touching Christ.You may not be able to relate to them, but perhaps that is simplybecause it is a part of Christ that you have not yet seen. It is as ifyou are looking at one side of a coin while others observe the otherside of the coin. Try as you might to convince the others that they aredescribing the coin incorrectly, they know what they are looking at.Maybe it is time for you to consider that they truly are describing aside of the coin that is hidden from you.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"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.orgIf 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.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/23/2004 6:52:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Funny you would bring up GlasserI stumbled upon his theories in nursing school, and he made more sense than all the others put together. He acted as if there was no such thing as insanity and treated the patients as if they were capable of behaving normally, and they often did exactly that. One of the few things I still remember.Izzy What I liked about him was the fact that his counseling method was a type of directive counseling. He would present a solution to the clients problem and then give that individual a schedule for confronting those problems. Although I am no longer a paid and professional pastor, the work of pastor remains an avocation. And, as I see the scripture, God has given us the greatest of advise and guidance and He expects us to put that advice into practice -- and much of Glasser's approach mirrors that effort. Glasser is an admitted unbeliever, so caution is a key consideration. God bless John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/23/2004 7:46:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, John. Welcome Back. And you get a smiley face {:)
Hey, you mentioned an interest in conscience theory, and you expressed your opposition to secular psychology. Do you have Ed Bulkley, Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993)? Bulkley was a prof of mine at university. He raises some valid concerns. If you don't already have it, I think this book may be a helpful addition to your inquiry.
Bill Taylor
thanks for the tip. I want you to know that I do not dismiss psychology out of hand, but there is comparative little that I respect. Anyone who has taken first year psy has at least one text book that presents the various approaches of the psychology of counseling as a unified mental health science. The truth is that Foster, Freud, Yerkes, Glasser, Wundt, et al, disagree substantially with each other. And, in the real world of psychology counseling, therapeutic appraoches are as numerous as individual authors. Because of that fact, I personally regard little of psychology as science. Anyway, just know that I try to avoid my own bias when I when I read. Change is really not possible if we do not so resist. Thanks again for the reference and thank you to the others who have given me some direction on this.
John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
True, John. This just proves that Believers do not have a corner on all truth. Some unbelievers stumble onto truth also. Truth includes whatever really works, based on discoveries of how Gods creation operates. So we can take the good (Glassers method) and discard the bad (Glassers religious beliefs). If we only accepted truth from Believers or from direct scripture, well then I guess none of us would avail ourselves of polio vaccines, or of modern methods of architecture, or of modern appliances or vehicles, or fabrics, or heating/cooking methods, or of ANYTHING discovered by unbelievers. The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. (Prov.13:22) Sometimes that wealth is a discovery or a method that works. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird In a message dated 3/23/2004 6:52:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, Funny you would bring up GlasserI stumbled upon his theories in nursing school, and he made more sense than all the others put together. He acted as if there was no such thing as insanity and treated the patients as if they were capable of behaving normally, and they often did exactly that. One of the few things I still remember.Izzy What I liked about him was the fact that his counseling method was a type of directive counseling. He would present a solution to the clients problem and then give that individual a schedule for confronting those problems. Although I am no longer a paid and professional pastor, the work of pastor remains an avocation. And, as I see the scripture, God has given us the greatest of advise and guidance and He expects us to put that advice into practice -- and much of Glasser's approach mirrors that effort. Glasser is an admitted unbeliever, so caution is a key consideration. God bless John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Hi Bill,
I agree that the Lord works in mysterious ways his
wonders to perform--there is much we don'tunderstand that he does, and I
guess the bottom line is--whatever works, works, huh?
Advocates of BIBLE ONLY scriptures might take
offense at this, but I can't pass up this opportunity to say the BoM has led
millions to having faith in Jesus Christ--sans the traditional baggage that
usually goes with theBIBLE-IS-THE -ONLY-SCRIPTURE point of view.
(:)
- Original Message -
From:
Wm. Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:31
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Hey, Blaine, No problem -- it's not my
story. I'm just telling it like I heard it. I happen to know this kid quite
well and believe he's telling it like he saw it }:)but beyond that,
you'll have to decide. As far as being schizophrenic, I happen to know that he
has not been diagnosed as such. By the way, what is schizophrenia? Could it
just as easily be demonic? For that matter, where better to pick up a few
transient "friends" than at a GD concert, tripping on acid? The point is,
whatever the diagnosis, it brought him promptly to the Lord, who promptly
received him into the fold and continues to feedhim there. Am I saying
that the best way to meet Jesus is on drugs? Should we be teaching an LSD
doctrine? Of course not. But why not let the Lord work in mysterious ways and
us marvel at his majesty? Praise the Lord!
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Blaine
Borrowman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:42
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Blaine: You used the word,
"hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator?
How old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both
visual and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late
teens or early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite
normal. That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead,
members ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators
makes this suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is
exactly the stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I
once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed
schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under conditions
of stressand/or excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of
6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat
lasted for months, which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of
the time she was able to tell the difference between her hallucinations and
reality. Not to knock your story, but . . .
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman
gets the Bird
Read my Polanyi post and get back to
me.
As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know.
I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at
a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair
walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd
and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing
through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell
on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He
is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led
him.
I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's
Truth, whatever the discloser.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman
gets the Bird
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about
checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven?
If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in
it?
So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity?
Was he a christian in more than name only?
What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Judy,
I do not know if you are aware of this,
so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments
intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt
and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in
several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is c
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
how is it that even redeemd ppl, Jesus' followers today,are at a loss to express "how[God] spoke the worlds into existence"? perhaps even redeemd ppl have "darkened minds"; perhaps the subject matter itself is off limits re: the latter choice, whilewe are faced with the absolutely unknown inattemptgto understand "how" God works, e.g,. in Creation, how can anyone, partic those with thoroughly "darkened minds" propose a knowledge of God which is subjective, meang a (subjectivist's)knowledge strictly acc to experience? (ftr, those who countenance "objective knowledge"face this kind of critique, too:) for followers of Christ, Jesus, Creation is an act of God in whom (not "in which", referringback to Creation per se) we 'live and move and have our being'; Ps. 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. G ~ P 235 On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:45:15 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People with minds darkened by the [g]od of this world trying to figure out how[God] spoke the worlds into existence.
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/24/2004 4:31:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. (Prov.13:22) Sometimes that wealth is a discovery or a method that works. Izzy Very well stated. I am and have been a disciple for 47 years --- YEKS. After all that time, it still excites me to find truth (i.e. this William Glasser thing) that demonstrates the subtle acceptance of the Word of God. There was a word of thanksgiving when I read those details from Glasser that testify to God's presence and wisdom. All truth is from God just as suredly as "every good and perfect gift." The Proverbs 13:22 reference is a precisely to this point. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with Jesus.It takes action to please him: "Do untoothers ..." What's the strawman? Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions." Judy, this is ridiculous. These are all in just one of your posts. Look over some of your others. In other words: Silly woman, scarecrows are for birds. Your strawman is lazy; he's sleeping on the job.Ravens are roosting on his shoulders. He needs to get the boot. Promptly. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Confucius, Polanyi etc. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. jt said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? First of all,I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. jt: During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. I said I like looking for him (the Lord) in all the "wrong" places. By that I mean places not commonly frequented by highly stuffy religious types, places like university lecture halls and science forums. I am always amazed, when I go to those places, to find that Jesus is already there, laying the groundwork for the
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with Jesus.It takes action to please him: "Do untoothers ..." What's the strawman? Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions." Judy, this is ridiculous. These are all in just one of your posts. Look over some of your others. In other words: Silly woman, scarecrows are for birds. Your strawman is lazy; he's sleeping on the job.Ravens are roosting on his shoulders. He needs to get the boot. Promptly. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Confucius, Polanyi etc. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. jt said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? First of all,I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. jt: During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. I said I like looking for him (the Lord) in all the "wrong" places. By that I mean places not commonly
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
For some it is the Grateful Dead, for others it was Van Halen! Were these guys doing acid?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with Jesus.It takes action to please him: "Do untoothers ..." What's the strawman? Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributio
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
What evidence exists that Polanyi was a Christian?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with Jesus.It takes action to please him: "Do untoothers ..." What's the strawman? Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions." Judy, this is ridiculous. These are all in just one of your posts. Look over some of your others. In other words: Silly woman, scarecrows are for birds. Your strawman is lazy; he's sleeping on the job.Ravens are roosting on his shoulders. He needs to get the boot. Promptly. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Confucius, Polanyi etc. From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. jt said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? First of all,I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. jt: During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. I said I like looking
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
In a message dated 3/23/2004 5:38:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? I really don't intend to get involved in this discussion BUT it is obvious to me that several are making entirely much to much out of this phrase used by Bill. I tried to follow this and other threads while in the great northwest. Looking for God "in all the wrong places" was Bill's way of saying that his search for truth and God included sources that were not normally credited for revealing God. No big deal. Look, I am so very opposed to secular psychology but I do not omit these sources in my personal search for truth. Bill Glasser is an agnostic (at best) whose "reality therapy" and "control therapy" is a form of therapy that actually offers the client advise and expects that person to act upon that advice. Because THAT is in line with biblical teaching, I use what I can -- scripture being the primary source. Truth is everywhere and, often, in the most unsuspecting places. That is what I got out of Bill's side of the discussion. I venture to say that Bill Taylor is one of the good guys. Nothing wrong with the discussion or the disagreement but Bill is a brother (for the sake of this list) because he claims Christ as his savior. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Kevin, I don't know about Van Halen, but my friend was tripping on acid, yes. When he saw the blond haired big man coming toward him he fell to his knees and started begging the Lord's forgiveness. Everyone around him was standing, so he stayed on his knees and crawled through the crowd, hiding from the big man. When he got to the exit he stood up and headedfor the parking lot, not looking back. As far as I know, he has never looked back. He is very active now in Campus Crusade for Christ in Colorado Springs, CO,ministering to teenagers. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird For some it is the Grateful Dead, for others it was Van Halen! Were these guys doing acid?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
His own testimonial as relayed through several of his close friends. His own words in his book entitled Meaning. The very fact that he walked away from a very proud heritage both in Judaism and later in the arena of Science to become a participating member of a Christian Church. Is that enough? I dare say I hope it is, because that is as much or more than many of us (read Christians) can offer. - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird What evidence exists that Polanyi was a Christian?Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and conversations, and I have always putwhomever I am speaking of, whether it bePolanyi or Torrance or Calvin or Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to Christ. Please be a little more careful with your words. You said Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of Polanyi. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent. Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with Jesus.It takes action to please him: "
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Blaine: You used the word, "hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator? How old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both visual and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late teens or early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite normal. That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead, members ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators makes this suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is exactly the stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under conditions of stressand/or excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of 6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat lasted for months, which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of the time she was able to tell the difference between her hallucinations and reality. Not to knock your story, but . . . - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird Read my Polanyi post and get back to me. As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say, "I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him. I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's Truth, whatever the discloser. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in it? So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he a christian in more than name only? What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I do not know if you are aware of this, so I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I mean: You said How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong' places." You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be." You said I agree that He is Lord over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it. What's the strawman? I did not say that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is there." You said It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time? What's the strawman? I did not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest it.I have never said something so ludicrous. I said,"Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present inEnlightenment mentality?" Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do notput blasphemous words in my mouth.I have always kept Christ in the center of my theology and co
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Hey, Blaine, No problem -- it's not my
story. I'm just telling it like I heard it. I happen to know this kid quite well
and believe he's telling it like he saw it }:)but beyond that, you'll
have to decide. As far as being schizophrenic, I happen to know that he has not
been diagnosed as such. By the way, what is schizophrenia? Could it just as
easily be demonic? For that matter, where better to pick up a few transient
"friends" than at a GD concert, tripping on acid? The point is, whatever the
diagnosis, it brought him promptly to the Lord, who promptly received him into
the fold and continues to feedhim there. Am I saying that the best way to
meet Jesus is on drugs? Should we be teaching an LSD doctrine? Of course not.
But why not let the Lord work in mysterious ways and us marvel at his majesty?
Praise the Lord!
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Blaine
Borrowman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:42
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Blaine: You used the word,
"hallucinating." Was thisfriend a frequent hallucinator? How
old was he? Peoplewith hereditary schizophrenia have both visual
and auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late teens or
early twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite normal.
That it happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead, members
ofagroup of notorius and self confessed fornicators makes this
suspect.Also, the very excitement of a rock concert is exactly the
stimulus often associated with unusual hallcinations. I once knew a
woman who hallucinated often--she was a diagnosed schizophrenic--and she told
me she tended to get that way under conditions of stressand/or
excitement. She lost a baby after a pregnancy of 6 or so months, and
fell into a delerium of hallucinatory episodesthat lasted for months,
which she had no control over. Otherwise, most of the time she was able
to tell the difference between her hallucinations and reality. Not to
knock your story, but . . .
- Original Message -
From:
Wm.
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Read my Polanyi post and get back to
me.
As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've
not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a
Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk
out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say,
"I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through
people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his
face then and there, promptly givinghis life to the Lord. He is not
sure about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led
him.
I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's
Truth, whatever the discloser.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Kevin Deegan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman
gets the Bird
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about
checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven?
If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in
it?
So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was
he a christian in more than name only?
What evidence can you present?"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Judy,
I do not know if you are aware of this, so
I won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually
dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point
out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your
rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words
and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building
a strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I
mean:
You said How did
Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong"
places?
What's the strawman? I did not say
that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be.
I said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong'
places."
You said During his time of ministry on this earth he was still
part of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the
Father.
What's the
strawman? I did not
say that Jesus was the God the Father. I sa
RE: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
John, Funny you would bring up GlasserI stumbled upon his theories in nursing school, and he made more sense than all the others put together. He acted as if there was no such thing as insanity and treated the patients as if they were capable of behaving normally, and they often did exactly that. One of the few things I still remember.Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird In a message dated 3/23/2004 5:38:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? I really don't intend to get involved in this discussion BUT it is obvious to me that several are making entirely much to much out of this phrase used by Bill. I tried to follow this and other threads while in the great northwest. Looking for God in all the wrong places was Bill's way of saying that his search for truth and God included sources that were not normally credited for revealing God. No big deal. Look, I am so very opposed to secular psychology but I do not omit these sources in my personal search for truth. Bill Glasser is an agnostic (at best) whose reality therapy and control therapy is a form of therapy that actually offers the client advise and expects that person to act upon that advice. Because THAT is in line with biblical teaching, I use what I can -- scripture being the primary source. Truth is everywhere and, often, in the most unsuspecting places. That is what I got out of Bill's side of the discussion. I venture to say that Bill Taylor is one of the good guys. Nothing wrong with the discussion or the disagreement but Bill is a brother (for the sake of this list) because he claims Christ as his savior. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
hey Layman--is this how you were taught, too? What does it have to do with Scripture? G On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 .."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..why not let the Lord work in mysterious ways and us marvel at his majesty? and "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tacit Knowing, Truthful Knowing explores Michael Polanyi's criticisms of.. subjectivism..
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets the Bird
Thanks, John. Welcome Back. And you geta
smiley face {:)
Hey, you mentioned an interest in conscience
theory, and you expressed your opposition to secular psychology. Do you have Ed
Bulkley, Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 1993)? Bulkley was a prof of mine at university. He raises some valid
concerns. If you don't already have it, I think this book may be a helpful
addition to your inquiry.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:48
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
In a
message dated 3/23/2004 5:38:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about
checking him out or his truth at a Witches Coven? I really don't intend to get
involved in this discussion BUT it is obvious to me that several are making
entirely much to much out of this phrase used by Bill. I tried to
follow this and other threads while in the great northwest.
Looking for God "in all the wrong places" was Bill's way of
saying that his search for truth and God included sources that were not
normally credited for revealing God. No big deal.
Look, I am so very opposed to secular psychology but I do not omit
these sources in my personal search for truth. Bill Glasser is an
agnostic (at best) whose "reality therapy" and "control therapy" is a
form of therapy that actually offers the client advise and expects that person
to act upon that advice. Because THAT is in line with biblical
teaching, I use what I can -- scripture being the primary source.
Truth is everywhere and, often, in the most unsuspecting places.
That is what I got out of Bill's side of the discussion.
I venture to say that Bill Taylor is one of the good guys.
Nothing wrong with the discussion or the disagreement but Bill is
a brother (for the sake of this list) because he claims Christ as his savior.
John
