[TruthTalk] Re:Billy Crystal in Mr Saturday Night

[Lance Muir]

His recurring question was "did you see what I did there"? This was when he took something and turned it on its head thus making  convoluted that which was essentially clear prior to his doing his "thing". Not only did I see what you did there, Judy, but anyone capable of reading also saw. Comic relief, even when unintended (or whas it?) can be pleasant can it not?? Thanks for the smile. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 11:53 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:MEANING From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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   From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. From: Wm. Taylor 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 ----- From: 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 If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy.   BT   From: Judy Taylor 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?