----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 27, 2004 12:41
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Billy Crystal in
Mr Saturday Night
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".
jt: Are you describing
sleight of hand? I'm not familiar with Mr. Saturday
Night.
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
jt: I have no idea what you are talking about or for
that matter
what you are smiling about. Would you let me in on
the joke?
Whether you believe it or not I am serious about
these things;
I am not out to to engender strife, nor is my
motive to get the
best of anyone. So what did I
do???
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?
