David Miller wrote:
John Smithson wrote: > ... there is no logical need for such observations in discussions between > brethren and sisterns. It is unnecessary chatter serving no purpose in > establishing one's conclusions. It communicates in a succinct manner that he led me to think I would find one thing, but instead I found something else. That can serve the help us communicate better. If the situation had been reversed, I would want to hear from him that I had misled him. I cannot understand why you would call it "unnecessary chatter" for me to inform him that he misled me. John responds: Leave that kind of talk out of your discussion(s) and you will see my point. You seem to be saying that accusations involving personal observations are even necessary to effective dialogue. And, in fact, you do not take well to the same kind of language used against you. John wrote: > If you felt "misled," then THAT should have been the primary > issue. But, of course, you did not say that, did you? > "Misled" was not about you (as in "I feel misled and this is a > problem, Jonathan"). Rather it was an accusation. Following is what I [David Miller] had written: David Miller [to Jonathan] wrote: >> 4. You have tried to pass off this article as something >> other than what it is. I started looking into this expecting >> to find very different backgrounds of the people based >> upon what you have said. Instead, I found that you >> misled me. You seem to be wrangling over words here. I try to write posts with concern and interest for the other person, not myself. Who cares if I "felt" misled. That is my own problem to deal with. If I felt misled, which I did, I communicate that with the other person by saying, "Hey! You misled me." I am not approaching him as my counselor or psychologist to try and have him help me with my feelings of being misled. John responds: And how did Jonathan view your comments? Did he move on to the next biblical issue or illustration or did he feel compelled to defend himself against the "misled" charge? In fact, DavidM, you took the thread off course for a time because of that accusation. You could have simply said, "I disagree" and made your reply -- but that is not what you do. I noticed in the most recent post with Jonathan, you counter his post on governmental authority by asserting a personal claim that your God is mre powerful than Jonathan's God. Since there is only one God, I do not know how that works, but more than that, such personal claims are often untrue (in this particular case) and even insulting. Once again, you have taken the thread off course. There is no need to do that. You have good ideas and are rahter involved in your intellectual construct. Often, enjoyable to read. But then you get into this other more personal bias and off we go. David continues: Was my comment an accusation? Of course it was. I made an allegation that he did something undesirable and I attempted to communicate that. Now I admit that I don't always perfectly understand people, and so my being misled might have been partly caused by a misunderstanding on my part concerning what he was trying to say. Nevertheless, if I was misled, there is nothing at all wrong with telling him that he misled me. You make the implication now that using the word "misled" has no place in the language of a Christian. You phrased it as a question to me, but apparently you were not really interested in my opinion, but rather you were trying to make your point in some indirect way. I sure hope you do not espouse the wimpy brand of Christianity that refuses to stand up to wrong statements and wrong acts. Christianity is filled with wimps yelling, "judge not." They seem to feel that instruction, correction, rebuke, and reproof has no place in the life of a Christian. Please tell me that you are not in that camp of emasculated Christianity. If this thread continues, I think we should change the subject line to be about whether or not Christians should reprove, rebuke and exhort with longsuffering. Or, the concept of whether or not Christians should judge? This seems to be what this is really about. John responds: Actually, I am talking about whether Christians should insult, falsely accuse, and pander to emotional argumentation. That would be a good discussion -- very much needed on TT (at times - and I often am the chief offender.) David continues: One last comment for now. Jonathan seems to appreciate the idea of a "Hebrew mindset." Well, perhaps both of you should check out a Yeshiva sometime and see how much screaming and yelling they do with one another in searching out the Scriptures. Western Christians today for the most part simply cannot endure sound doctrine. John responds: Here, again, is a perfect example of your "style" of writing. There is Jonathan or me or whoever, and there is DaividM, the perveyor of sound doctrine. Nonsense. You have no more claim to that position than anyone else. You equate your writings with "sound doctrine" and those who disagree with those who are unable to endure. Pray and think, David. God is calling you to a softer approach. Warm and fuzzy is waht I am all about. Will you join me? Peace be with you. David Miller. -�r���眅������� �q� j�'y�"���ajܨ�f��z0��2��.�m�������¢Z,�&������� 0"yƖ��*.v�����+yǢ��h�� ����+%��lzwZ�隊[h-�y:�ږB'�ih�*+���ʋ��Y[z�칻 �&�t���Z�柮'�wh�����#�)�zYa�kh���jw�j)m��"�:�ږB'�ih�*+��݅�"�V��r��y
