|
When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine
communication takes
place. Citing scripture even when both persons
are Christians, is no
guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth.
jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more
sense for us to gather around God's Word
than the thoughts of these university
professors and theologians? Especially
since there is just ONE mediator
between God and man.
Neither need be described as dumb, intractible,
malicious etc.
Examples of this abound on TT. Lance
jt: Are you saying that examples of
ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance?
I ask because I am not sure what you
mean?
judyt
Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on
SvsM
It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it
that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the
distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance. -----
jt: You have no idea what I mean when I say things Lance.
If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker
punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list;
and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween S&S
Why do I need to? judyt
Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs
Meaning
This is what is wrong with the professing Church
and has been for generations; smart men (after
the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little
children can understand then so can we. The
reason noone can understand what you say Bill is
because your mind is full of the wisdom of theologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance
just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl
on this list will buy these books and read
their ramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what
you are saying?
Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy
Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no
respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is
humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God
and His Word. judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No syntax contains its own semantics. Without
overlapping meaning
no "meaningful" communication takes
place.
Judy, if you will go
back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time
since coming to this list that we were actually getting along with
each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was
that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the
other. Last night (in my time zone) you involved yourself in two
different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took
issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you
did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I
was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough
context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you
should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I
am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that
before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with
what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but
inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will
help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of
having gotten along for almost a day.
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
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
If you had been
respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions,
Judy.
BT
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 -----
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?
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?
|
