READ YOUR POST JOHN.
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 13:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 4th Commandment
In a message dated 10/17/2004 9:40:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jonathan responds: Now that is funny. The day Judy admits to any change/being wrong is the day pigs begin to fly. Since all of Judyâs beliefs are straight from the Holy Spirit they can never be wrong or called into question. Always remember, God is on her side, never yours.
She will deny this but -- I am like you: How could she?
For the record I view Sladeâs posts with a lot of interest. He dialogues (give and take) more than Judy and Izzy combined. I find it strange that you go after Slade instead of Judy/Izzy.
Jonathan, the reason for the difference is that I see hope for Slade. He does dialogue more. And he has something to say -- to consider. And he doesn't seem as emotionally biased as Judy/Izzy. BUT, I have had more than one response ignored by the Slade/Jeff combo. You and Lance got through to me at least, because of a willingness to continue the discussion. Bill T left the group because of frustration with the kind of disagreement he encountered. But it was his persistent reply that gave me the opportuanity to understand what he was saying. When I take the time to fashion a response only to be ignored or told that "I am not interested in this discussion," why would I even bother to read future postings? I have lots of material I can read. If I want to read, I will buy a book. I am on TT for more than that.
These people possess no skills of being able to dialogue nor do they care to. A quick
look at the archives for just the last month proves this easily. Your own conversations with Judy and Izzy have just ended in frustration.
True.
They are brick walls who will just put you down until you surrender. If it wasnât for
yourself and Slade there would be no discussion on this forum at all; just dogmatic statements. As Slade states, âBy now, we're all painfully aware of each other's dogmaticisms.â
I really do not see Slade in the same light as Judy/Izzy. But he does not continue the discussion, often a discussion he started. If he is going to casually malign someone's point of view - a necessary positioning if debate is going to continue -- then he should expect a response, right?
bro Jo
Aaaahhhh. You are right. I did mention "Jeff" once. So there you are. And where was I referencing a discussion on "sin" in that post?
