[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious

[Judy Taylor]

From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potential for greater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use.   jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is something I am interested in.  IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments.  It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consider your ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill?   judyt       From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy.   BT   From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jt says > Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words?   Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I  had actually written something. Why were you unwilling to do this?   jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other.  In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time. Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment?   jt   Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying. I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been (in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on. I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. Please be patient,     Bill     ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.   John: I would say absolutely not.  True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth."    What are there  --  400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church.    Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb.      jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything.  Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway?   judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?