Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
David Miller wrote: I quoted you exactly as you wrote it John wrote: The very next sentence is EXACTLY what I said. John wrote: I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order. David Miller wrote: That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. John wrote: You go back. I already did and the result is the very next sentence. John wrote: You wrote: You claim we can't know anything This last sentence is not my quote of you. It is my communication to you of what I understood you to be saying. It is new content. I precede quotes with symbols. You asked me to go back and look at the post to see that I did not quote you correctly. Well, I did go back and look, thinking maybe I had a problem with my memory and owed you an apology, but instead I found that you were wrong. I did quote you correctly. Look closely at the second paragraph in the quote below. However, I do not want to continue this discussion. We have a new moderator now and we need to get back on the right foot of discussing interesting subjects, not playing word games of you said / he said / she said. If you have anything more to say on this thread (like maybe an apology to me!), please take it private so we don't bore the rest of the list. I'm not holding my breath because I don't remember you ever admitting to being wrong. - - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation David Miller wrote: I would think from comments you have made that your position would be that there is a little bit of doubt in all of us. Am I mistaken about that? John wrote: Yes ... Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order. David Miller wrote: You claim that this teaching of Christ does not include us. From my perspective, this emanates from doubt and unbelief. John wrote: S, if one disagrees with you, the problem is always one of doubt and disbelief? If I am speaking truth, yes, but the real point is that when somebody disagrees with Christ, the reason is doubt and unbelief. John wrote: When you disagree with me, David, it is because you are wrong !! That'what I think. How can I be wrong if knowing you are right is a fantasy? You are filled with contradictions here that make further conversation impossible without first resolving the issue of whether or not we can know anything. When I say that your perspective seems to be that there is a little doubt and unbelief in all of us, you disagree. Yet, you then turn around and claim that knowing we are right about something is a fantasy. You can't have it both ways. We obviously have a huge disconnect here in regards to our terms of knowledge, knowing, doubt, and unbelief. You must be working from some other definitions of these words or you are a completely irrational person. John wrote: It never has crossed my mind that you were one of doubt and disbeleif. Well, you should be thinking of me that way, because I have quite a bit of doubt and unbelief. If I did not, I would be walking on water and doing many of the other things that Jesus said those who believed upon him would do (John 14:12). John wrote: Guaranteed I am not. And you think I am arrogant and you are not? This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard on TruthTalk. If you know any way to explain what doubt and unbelief and knowledge mean to you, please try. We have grossly different understandings of these words. You claim we can't know anything and yet at the same time not have doubt and unbelief. When my mind hears that, it reacts like that robot on Lost in Space saying, It does not compute. [I borrowed from my childhood memories of Lost in Space just for Lance. :-)] 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 very important for how I understand our relationship to the Word (the Logos, Christ, Scripture, etc.). 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: ... Christ took the curse of the Law away ... If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain, David. ... to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace. ...snip... Enough, Bishop. You are preaching to the choir here. I agree with points like these. Good - because they are taken from scritprue My point was that if God was not a legalist, there would have been no need for an offering. Why didn't God just forgive everyone... live and let live, without any offering, cross and crucifixion? What's the point of all that if God is not a legalist? Your definition has everyone a legalist. legalist: someone who adheres to the literal interpretation of law or moral code. Where in the Law does it require the blood sacrifice for all of mankind by the Incarnate God? Law: the wages of sin is death. How does a non-legalist get around this problem, Simple, He nails this curse of the law to the cross and considers our sins no more.and how does the legalist get around the problem? Hint: How does someone like Lance solve the problem versus how does someone like God solve the problem? I suspect the Canadian Bishop would agree with God's solution. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
TT archive address, anyone? Jd
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
no--tell us about them thanks, Lance - g On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:Have you read any of the following: The Tipping Point, Blink (same author) or, Freakonomics? ||
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
http://www.mail-archive.com/truthtalk@mail.innglory.org/ On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:57:36 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TT archive address, anyone? Jd
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: You are a legalist, David. Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too. Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for your sins. John wrote: Well meaning, of course. Thank you. John wrote: 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. You misunderstand. I am not playing any game. David Miller wrote: I quoted you exactly as you wrote it John wrote: I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order. That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. John wrote: You wrote: You claim we can't know anything You can't see the differen. Trying counting the words. I still see your statement as saying that we cannot know anything. The number of words don't matter. I was not quoting you with this sentence, nor was I misrepresenting you. I was communicating how your information comes over to me based upon my understanding of the words you have used. If you don't want to try and communicate on this, fine, but don't claim that I am playing some kind of game or that I am trying to make you look bad. John wrote: You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period. You proved that I did quote you correctly by repeating in this post what you wrote. That is exactly how I quoted you. Your statement here that I nowhere quote you correctly is a false statement. You are the one who needs to repent for making such false allegations. John wrote: Where do you say that I did not mean what I wrote? Implicit in asking for your definition of words, and sharing how your message came across to me in a way that you find objectionable, is saying that whatever it is you are trying to say is not coming across. You are not communicating what you hope to communicate, whatever that is. John wrote: Where do you suggest that we have different meanings (implying that you already know my definitions). Such does not imply that I already know your definitions. If I did, I would not ask you for clarification. This is not some game. I just do not understand you. Rather than calling you nuts, I realize that you use words in some esoteric way that escapes me. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it is likely that I am not smart enough to understand you. John wrote: Where do ask me to relieve apparent contradictions? I'm not going to back track to that post. I asked you to define your terms because you appear to come across contradictory. I assume that you do not mean to come across that way and I assume that you are intelligent. I tire of this and I am sure that others do too. I only post this hoping that you might not continue in your evil surmisings concerning me. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
If you want substantial then, write privately to David and Christine. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 28, 2005 11:29 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Oh No! Are we back to the worship and follow Bob Dylan groupie club? I've been busy with house guests and am looking for something substantial. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:Have you read any of the following: The Tipping Point, Blink (same author) or, Freakonomics? Please do not retire voluntarily. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:[Gary thinks] people[are] free tospeak however they like to speak. ( he ain't the only one) ..Across the street they've nailed the curtainsThey're getting ready for the feastThe Phantom of the OperaA perfect image of a priestThey're spoonfeeding CasanovaTo get him to feel more assuredThen they'll kill him with self-confidenceAfter poisoning him with wordsAnd the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls"Get Outa Here If You Don't KnowCasanova is just being punished for goingTo Desolation Row".. Bob Dylan, Copyright 1965
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 28, 2005 12:40 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Why should I have to do that - after all this is a Truth Talk List is it not? I understand Truth to be a person with a name other thanDylan. Killing with self-confidence after poisoning with words may be a familiar happening on TT but it is something for which we should repent rather than glory in our shame. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want substantial then, write privately to David and Christine. From: Judy Taylor Oh No! Are we back to the worship and follow Bob Dylan groupie club? I've been busy with house guests and am looking for something substantial. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gary:Have you read any of the following: The Tipping Point, Blink (same author) or, Freakonomics? Please do not retire voluntarily. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:[Gary thinks] people[are] free tospeak however they like to speak. ( he ain't the only one) ..Across the street they've nailed the curtainsThey're getting ready for the feastThe Phantom of the OperaA perfect image of a priestThey're spoonfeeding CasanovaTo get him to feel more assuredThen they'll kill him with self-confidenceAfter poisoning him with wordsAnd the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls"Get Outa Here If You Don't KnowCasanova is just being punished for goingTo Desolation Row".. Bob Dylan, Copyright 1965
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
So, dear Judith, is his. I know for a certainty
(David, please bookmark this) that there are simply some things that you cannot
see. This (he) is one of them. What a loss for you. Keep on truckin' Jt. God's
kingdome is richer for having you in it.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 12:56
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem
arguments
That may be so Lance and there are all kinds of
creative and imaginative ppl out there, enough to wear anyone
out... only what you call "creative, literary and
imaginative" has nothingto do with truth, either
comprehending
it or walking in it. Ppl who areall taken
up with their own ideas and their own thoughts do not havetime or energy
for God's ideas and His thoughts which are so much
higher. I walked out there for long enough to know that it
is
a trail that leads nowhere. It's all
temporal and passing away. My focus today is fixed on the eternal.
jt
On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:45:23 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more
perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far
behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing.
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: May 28, 2005 12:40
Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad
hominem arguments
Why should I have to do that - after all this is
a Truth Talk List is it not? I understand Truth to be a
person
with a name other thanDylan. Killing
with self-confidence after poisoning with words may be a
familiar
happening on TT but it is something for which we
should repent rather than glory in our shame. jt
On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
If you want substantial then, write
privately to David and Christine.
From: Judy
Taylor
Oh No! Are we
back to the worship and follow Bob Dylan groupie club? I've been
busy
with house guests and am looking for
something substantial. jt
On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:56:05 -0400 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Gary:Have you read any of the
following: The Tipping Point, Blink (same author) or, Freakonomics?
Please do not retire
voluntarily.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 27 May
2005 13:25:37 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:[Gary thinks] people[are] free
tospeak however they like to
speak.
( he ain't the only one)
..Across the street they've nailed the
curtainsThey're getting ready for the feastThe Phantom of
the OperaA perfect image of a priestThey're spoonfeeding
CasanovaTo get him to feel more assuredThen they'll kill
him with self-confidenceAfter poisoning him with
wordsAnd the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls"Get
Outa Here If You Don't KnowCasanova is just being punished for
goingTo Desolation Row"..
Bob Dylan, Copyright 1965
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Lance Muir wrote: Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing. I can identify with that last line. Terry
Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Word is, Terry, that he's also a gun totin', tabaccee chewin' good ol' boy when off TT. - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 28, 2005 14:25 Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Lance Muir wrote: Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing.I can identify with that last line.Terry
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Lance, I will not argue with you on Gary's credentials as you have stated them. But, I have rarely seen a post of his that I have understood. People, in general, don't think and communicate like Gary, so much of the time it sounds to me like he is speaking a foreign language. His style of writing was popular in the 60's, which probably accounts for his attraction to B. Dylan (or does his attraction t BD account for his style?). I often avoid his posts because I haven't the time to dig out my old Dylan LPs and read the backs for clues to what Gary is trying to say. Maybe TT is not the right forum for him to exercise his highly creative talents. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing. -- 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: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Rollin Stones Magazine? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:52 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Lance, I will not argue with you on Gary's credentials as you have stated them. But, I have rarely seen a post of his that I have understood. People, in general, don't think and communicate like Gary, so much of the time it sounds to me like he is speaking a foreign language. His style of writing was popular in the 60's, which probably accounts for his attraction to B. Dylan (or does his attraction t BD account for his style?). I often avoid his posts because I haven't the time to dig out my old Dylan LPs and read the backs for clues to what Gary is trying to say. Maybe TT is not the right forum for him to exercise his highly creative talents. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gary is, at present and IMO, one of the more perceptive, creative, literary, imaginative writers on TT. Others trail far behind. You've never understood him or, what he's doing. -- 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. -- 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: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Lance Muir wrote: Word is, Terry, that he's also a gun totin', tabaccee chewin' good ol' boy when off TT. = If he chews, he is probably a ball player, and you know how THEY are. :-)
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]orgTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:53:28 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments John wrote: You are a legalist, David. Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too. Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for your sins. There can be no argument that God was the author of the Law. Christ took the curse of the Law awayBlessed are those whose "sins and iniquities are remembered no more." Where there is forgivenessof these things, there is no longer any offering for sin -- He 10:18. In the fulfillment ofthe Law, we have the end of law. The contrast is law verses Spirit.If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain, David. Therefore, the faith of Christ is presented in the place of righteousness (or the lack there of). The very purpose of the Law sealed its fate -- for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God. More than a contrast between law an d Spirit,th e biblical text speaks of faith verses Law .. the incumbent rewards of abiding in the Law is nota demonstration of faith - rather, such rewards are the result of indebtedness. That which waspresented in Jere 31:31-34 as a promise had its beginnings in the time of Abraham and before the Law.The law, then, was only a tutor, leading us to the time when we would be justified through faith,leading us to Christ. As a tutor, the Law was temporary. We are not children of the law (the bondswoman) ; rather and in contrast, we are children of the free woman. The really bad news in allthis is found in this fact: to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace. Keep the law, if you will DM -- as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. The Bishop
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:04:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John wrote:You are a legalist, David. David wrote: Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too. Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for your sins. John responds: There can be no argument that God was the author of the Law. Christ took the curse of the Law awayBlessed are those whose "sins and iniquities are remembered no more." Where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin -- He 10:18. In the fulfillment of the Law, we have the end of law. jt: Christ did not become a curse for those who keep on wilfully sinningJD. The curse is still all over those ppl and they are wearing it. Sickness is the curse of the law. Since Christ took the curse of the Law away - by following your reasoning sickness should be gone also. It's not so something is amiss. The Law has not gone anywhere JD. It is fulfilled in Christ. We must now allow it to be fulfilled in us also if we are to be found "in Him" The contrast is law verses Spirit.If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain, David. Therefore, the faith of Christ is presented in the place of righteousness (or the lack there of). The very purpose of the Law sealed its fate -- for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God. More than a contrast between law and Spirit, the biblical text speaks of faith verses Law .. the incumbent rewards of abiding in the Law is not a demonstration of faith - rather, such rewards are the result of indebtedness. jt: God Himself does not pit faith against His Law; this is done by doctrines of men. The only reason Old Covenant ppl could not keep God's Law was because of the weakness of the flesh for which we have now been given "dunamis" or power from heaven so that we are now able to fulfill God's Law in or through Christ. That which was presented in Jere 31:31-34 as a promise had its beginnings in the time of Abraham and before the Law.The law, then, was only a tutor, leading us to the time when we would be justified through faith, leading us to Christ. As a tutor, the Law was temporary. jt: God's Word is eternal JD; the Levitical system is what was temporary. We are not children of the law (the bondswoman) ; rather and in contrast, we are children of the free woman. jt: The allegory above (bondswoman) represents the works of the flesh and has nothing to do with God's Law which is spiritual. The really bad news in all this is found in this fact: to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace. jt: The Levitical system is finished and gone ... but trusing in the works of the flesh is the same thing. Keep the law, if you will DM -- as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. The Bishop jt: If you are trusting in the "incarnation" or "perichoresis" you are not any better off JD
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
..Now there's spiritual warfare and flesh and blood breaking down.Ya either got faith or ya got unbelief and there ain't no neutral ground.The enemy is subtle, how be it we are so deceivedWhen the truth's in our hearts and we still don't believe?..My so-called friends have fallen under a spell.They look me squarely in the eye and they say, "All is well."Can they imagine the darkness that will fall from on highWhen men will beg God to kill them and they won't be able to die? Shine your light, shine your light on meShine your light, shine your light on meShine your light, shine your light on meYa know I just couldn't make it by myself.I'm a little too blind to see. Copyright 1979 Special Rider Music - myth (while DavidM believes this, there is no ad hominem to discuss--that DavidM wanted me to forge the truth is the truth) On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:23:54 -0400 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:04:47 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John wrote:You are a legalist, David. David wrote: Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too. ||
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: 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.You misunderstand. I am not playing any game. Of course you are - at my expense -- but hey, the tickets are free. David Miller wrote: I quoted you exactly as you wrote it The very next sentence is EXACTLY what I said. John wrote: I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order.That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. You go back. I already did and the result is the very next sentence. John wrote: You wrote: "You claim we can't know anything" You can't see the difference? Trying counting the words.I still see your statement as saying that we cannot know anything. The number of words don't matter. How is it that the number of words don't matter when you are quoting me exactly. LOL I was not quoting you with this sentence, nor was I misrepresenting you. Can you say the "esoteric," David? I was communicating how your information comes over to me based upon my understanding of the words you have used. almost sounds as if you speak of impressions rather than verbatim quotations. If you don't want to try and communicate on this, fine, but don't claim that I am playing some kind of game or that I am trying to make you look bad. :-)John wrote: You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period.You proved that I did quote you correctly by repeating in this post what you wrote. That is exactly how I quoted you. This is just plain goofy. A phrase containing the words "esoteric knowing" appears once and not by your authorship. Whose playing a game? Your statement here that I nowhere quote you correctly is a false statement. Who knows, maybe I am the one who is an idiot, here. Can I ad hom myself? You are the one who needs to repent for making such false allegations. Repent and again I say REPENT. Maybe your "exact requote" is under the pickle. I'll go looksee...Nope !! To be continued JD My machine is doing the funky so I have to break here. Back in a flash with part III
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
evidence suggests DavidM's into forgery--for what purpose? On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:41:22 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: 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.You misunderstand. I am not playing any game. Of course you are - at my expense -- but hey, the tickets are free. David Miller wrote: I quoted you exactly as you wrote it The very next sentence is EXACTLY what I said. John wrote: I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order.That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. You go back. I already did and the result is the very next sentence. John wrote: You wrote: "You claim we can't know anything" You can't see the difference? Trying counting the words.I still see your statement as saying that we cannot know anything. The number of words don't matter. How is it that the number of words don't matter when you are quoting me exactly. LOL I was not quoting you with this sentence, nor was I misrepresenting you. Can you say the "esoteric," David? I was communicating how your information comes over to me based upon my understanding of the words you have used. almost sounds as if you speak of impressions rather than verbatim quotations. If you don't want to try and communicate on this, fine, but don't claim that I am playing some kind of game or that I am trying to make you look bad. :-)John wrote: You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period.You proved that I did quote you correctly by repeating in this post what you wrote. That is exactly how I quoted you. This is just plain goofy. A phrase containing the words "esoteric knowing" appears once and not by your authorship. Whose playing a game? Your statement here that I nowhere quote you correctly is a false statement. Who knows, maybe I am the one who is an idiot, here. Can I ad hom myself? You are the one who needs to repent for making such false allegations. Repent and again I say REPENT. Maybe your "exact requote" is under the pickle. I'll go looksee...Nope !! To be continued JD My machine is doing the funky so I have to break here. Back in a flash with part III
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
David and on second thought -- enough said. I have made my point without successful a successful counter. We are done with this. No "Part III," folks. Let's talk "kingdom" or some such thing. By the way, Miller -- what is your hermeneutic? simply an esoteric knowing or do you actually have a thoughtful process or structure by which you make decisions? How do you arrive at a given interpretation? I read your posts -- I haven't a clue how things work in your mind. JD -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sat, 28 May 2005 17:42:09 -0600Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments evidence suggests DavidM's into forgery--for what purpose? On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:41:22 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John wrote: 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.You misunderstand. I am not playing any game. Of course you are - at my expense -- but hey, the tickets are free. David Miller wrote: I quoted you exactly as you wrote it The very next sentence is EXACTLY what I said. John wrote: I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way is a fantasy of the first order.That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. You go back. I already did and the result is the very next sentence. John wrote: You wrote: "You claim we can't know anything" You can't see the difference? Trying counting the words.I still see your statement as saying that we cannot know anything. The number of words don't matter. How is it that the number of words don't matter when you are quoting me exactly. LOL I was not quoting you with this sentence, nor was I misrepresenting you. Can you say the "esoteric," David? I was communicating how your information comes over to me based upon my understanding of the words you have used. almost sounds as if you speak of impressions rather than verbatim quotations. If you don't want to try and communicate on this, fine, but don't claim that I am playing some kind of game or that I am trying to make you look bad. :-)John wrote: You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period.You proved that I did quote you correctly by repeating in this post what you wrote. That is exactly how I quoted you. This is just plain goofy. A phrase containing the words "esoteric knowing" appears once and not by your authorship. Whose playing a game? Your statement here that I nowhere quote you correctly is a false statement. Who knows, maybe I am the one who is an idiot, here. Can I ad hom myself? You are the one who needs to repent for making such false allegations. Repent and again I say REPENT. Maybe your "exact requote" is under the pickle. I'll go looksee...Nope !! To be continued JD My machine is doing the funky so I have to break here. Back in a flash with part III
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
good question; ftr, tt evidence suggestsparallelism betw his hermeneutic and (e.g.) jt's; the/irbed rockis philosophical while the Bible is evaluated(conformed to) dualistic bias which yields a religious ideology..biblical theologyhas no priority with them, no native respectgiven to it for its demolition of philosophical religion which is the worldly prerequisite: antiChrist, it calls it On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:56:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way,[DavidM] -- what is your hermeneutic? ||
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Meaningless religious mumbo jumbo Gary; I don't have any such"hermeneutic" in fact I totally reject theGk god Hermes along with the dualistic philosophy of Plato that you haveaccused me of endlessly. If you would follow hard after God and seek Him with your whole heart rather than give Him some kind of religious lip service then these things would not be such a mystery. How sad thatyou and JD focus so much on what you "think" other are saying and categorizing them rather than on God and Hisliving and eternalWord. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:25:42 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: good question; ftr, tt evidence suggestsparallelism betw his hermeneutic and (e.g.) jt's; the/irbed rockis philosophical while the Bible is evaluated(conformed to) dualistic bias which yields a religious ideology..biblical theologyhas no priority with them, no native respectgiven to it for its demolition of philosophical religion which is the worldly prerequisite: antiChrist, it calls it On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:56:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way,[DavidM] -- what is your hermeneutic? ||
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
There is no reason for rejecting thoughtful consideration of therevealed text. But you seem to be afraid of such."Hermeneutic" is not an evil word -- even your mentor, DM, would agree with this. I have book, chapter and verse for everything I believe in matters religious ---everything.You are as much influenced by "outside" thoughts as anyone. It is not just you and the Word. You have quotedtoo many writers (Dake, Strong andseveral others) for any of us to believe otherwise. You are not different for us. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sun, 29 May 2005 00:43:11 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Meaningless religious mumbo jumbo Gary; I don't have any such"hermeneutic" in fact I totally reject theGk god Hermes along with the dualistic philosophy of Plato that you haveaccused me of endlessly. If you would follow hard after God and seek Him with your whole heart rather than give Him some kind of religious lip service then these things would not be such a mystery. How sad thatyou and JD focus so much on what you "think" other are saying and categorizing them rather than on God and Hisliving and eternalWord. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:25:42 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: good question; ftr, tt evidence suggestsparallelism betw his hermeneutic and (e.g.) jt's; the/irbed rockis philosophical while the Bible is evaluated(conformed to) dualistic bias which yields a religious ideology..biblical theologyhas no priority with them, no native respectgiven to it for its demolition of philosophical religion which is the worldly prerequisite: antiChrist, it calls it On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:56:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way,[DavidM] -- what is your hermeneutic? ||
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: ... Christ took the curse of the Law away ... If righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain, David. ... to be justified by Law is to be fallen from grace. ...snip... Enough, Bishop. You are preaching to the choir here. I agree with points like these. My point was that if God was not a legalist, there would have been no need for an offering. Why didn't God just forgive everyone... live and let live, without any offering, cross and crucifixion? What's the point of all that if God is not a legalist? legalist: someone who adheres to the literal interpretation of law or moral code. Law: the wages of sin is death. How does a non-legalist get around this problem, and how does the legalist get around the problem? Hint: How does someone like Lance solve the problem versus how does someone like God solve the problem? 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
Is there a moderator in the house? Izzy is a bona fide author. We know that she'd run a tight ship. She'd pare the list down to 2 or 3 in no time at all. How 'bout it Iz?. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 27, 2005 11:48 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Izzy wrote: Calling DM nuts is an ad hom attack, and entirely uncalled for. Lance wrote: IFF he is not nuts. It is an ad hominem argument even if it were true. The truthfulness of the statement does not matter. What matters is whether he is speaking to the man or addressing the point under discussion. We have been having problems with having the moderator enforce the no ad hominem arguments rule that we have on TruthTalk. The enforcement of this rule is meant to minimize the problems that caused people like Debbie to leave. I have been trying to write Gary privately about this, but have not been getting much response. I'm going to wait until the end of the day to see if he decides to communicate directly with me about this, but if he does not, I see no option but to have a changing of the guards regarding the moderating of this list. More on this tomorrow. 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. -- 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: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
So wherewas the concernwhen Deegan called me a liar half a dozen times? -Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:24:35 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Is there a moderator in the house? Izzy is a bona fide author. We know that she'd run a tight ship. She'd pare the list down to 2 or 3 in no time at all. How 'bout it Iz?. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 27, 2005 11:48 Subject: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Izzy wrote: Calling DM nuts is an ad hom attack, and entirely uncalled for. Lance wrote: IFF he is not nuts. It is an ad hominem argument even if it were true. The truthfulness of the statement does not matter. What matters is whether he is "speaking to the man" or addressing the point under discussion. We have been having problems with having the moderator enforce the no ad hominem arguments rule that we have on TruthTalk. The enforcement of this rule is meant to minimize the problems that caused people like Debbie to leave. I have been trying to write Gary privately about this, but have not been getting much response. I'm going to wait until the end of the day to see if he decides to communicate directly with me about this, but if he does not, I see no option but to have a changing of the guards regarding the moderating of this list. More on this tomorrow. 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. -- "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: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: So where was the concern when Deegan called me a liar half a dozen times? Just for the record, John, I wrote Gary privately about that and his response was asking me to dig up the old posts for him. Then he posted something to TruthTalk that basically said he wanted people to be free to speak however they like to speak. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
I am used to Kevin -- you need to understnd that using the "n" word was like me leaning over, slapping you on the back, and saying, "so this confirms it, youARE really nuts." I meant it in a friendly sort of way. I will refrain from that word in the future. JD-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments John wrote: So where was the concern when Deegan called me a liar half a dozen times? Just for the record, John, I wrote Gary privately about that and his response was asking me to dig up the old posts for him. Then he posted something to TruthTalk that basically said he wanted people to be free to speak however they like to speak. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: I will refrain from that word in the future. It is not the word, per se. Calling people pretender or hypocrite is worse, in my opinion. The real problem is turning the subject to being about the person you are discussing an issue with rather than continuing the dialogue. 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. Instead, you accused me of trying to win an argument and make you look bad. How ridiculous. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
That is true --hopefully you will come to see your complicity in the problem, as well.-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:07:22 -0400Subject: Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments John wrote: I will refrain from that word in the future. It is not the word, per se. Calling people "pretender" or "hypocrite" is worse, in my opinion. The real problem is turning the subject to being about the person you are discussing an issue with rather than continuing the dialogue. 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. That is not what you were doing, at all. You were busy trying to convince who knows whothat I was functioning from a perspective of doubt and unbelief. If you hadn't misrepresented what I wrote, you would have made some progress. But that is how you do business with me. Instead, you accused me of trying to win an argument and make you look bad. How ridiculous. Yes it is. 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.
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. :-) 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. 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 wrote: If you hadn't misrepresented what I wrote, you would have made some progress. I quoted you exactly as you wrote it 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. John wrote: But that is how you do business with me. You take these matters way too personal. 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.
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:25:37 -0400 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:[Gary thinks] people[are] free tospeak however they like to speak. ( he ain't the only one) ..Across the street they've nailed the curtainsThey're getting ready for the feastThe Phantom of the OperaA perfect image of a priestThey're spoonfeeding CasanovaTo get him to feel more assuredThen they'll kill him with self-confidenceAfter poisoning him with wordsAnd the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls"Get Outa Here If You Don't KnowCasanova is just being punished for goingTo Desolation Row".. Bob Dylan, Copyright 1965
Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 17:12:47 -0400Subject: 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 16:17 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 absolutelyknew 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 betweendoubt and unbelief to knowledge and faith. There are connections between these words that areimportant 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=#ff>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.
