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.
I'm not sure what you mean by "personal observations." Are there any other kinds of observations that I can make?
What I think is necessary for effective dialogue is to say what you mean. I think what is necessary for effective dialogue is that when someone posts something that is outright fallacious, he needs to be held accountable. It was wrong for Jonathan to suggest that Stassen was a statistician and that those who would come to a different conclusion than Stassen are "uninformed."
John wrote:
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?
Unfortunately, he did react defensively, but that is what liberals do when confronted with the facts, don't they? Even you have changed the subject to being about how I should not have said that Jonathan misled me.
John wrote:
In fact, DavidM, you took the thread off course for a time because of that accusation.
I don't think so. From my perspective, you and Jonathan have taken the thread off course. It doesn't matter to me because I think a thread about how we should talk with one another is important in its own way.
John wrote:
You could have simply said, "I disagree" and made your reply -- but that is not what you do.
Because that would not have communicated what I want Jonathan to see. He thinks that he has all the INFORMED answers from a pro-life statistician, and every one of us who dismisses his article of interest without saying anything or with flippant comments are simply uninformed right-wingers who put our heads in the sand. I hope to inform him that I took his rhetoric seriously and it MISLED me. Right now, I'm glad you have made a point of it because it was only a minor point in my original post. Now you have made it front and center. Hopefully Jonathan gets this point better now.
Jonathan wrote:
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.
Not MY God as opposed to Jonathan's God, but rather my view and understanding of one true God. Jonathan has often stressed that we place too much emphasis upon man because we believe that Christians should have good works and that God is pleased with the good works that we do. His comment brings out that my view of God's omnipotence and power in this earth is apparently bigger than his. I suspect that such is somewhat ironic to his way of thinking. I hope he straightens up and hears what I am saying. If he does, he will see that his fear of making God small by praising God for the good works he brings through his servants is merely a manifestation of an inferiority complex that he has about God. My God is active and involved in the world, appointing Presidents and kings and fighting the forces of evil. His God is what? ... a spectator who watches men elect Presidents who do not know anything about God?
Jonathan wrote:
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.
I think it is profitable to point out that while he is so worried about us making God dependent upon man simply because we believe in doing good works, he far more limits God in his view that men truly appoint Presidents and kings. I believe that God appoints Presidents and kings.
John wrote:
Actually, I am talking about whether Christians should insult, falsely accuse, and pander to emotional argumentation.
Where did that come from? First we were talking about using the word "misled" in a Christian discussion, now you switch to talking about insults, false accusations, and pandering to emotional arguments. If you think I insulted someone or falsely accused someone, or pandered to an emotional argument, then stand up like and man and spell it out. Quit making us read between the lines. This is exactly what I have been talking about all this time, that we should just say what we mean.
John wrote:
That would be a good discussion -- very much needed on TT (at times - and I often am the chief offender.)
I agree.
David wrote:
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 wrote:
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 might want to read the paragraph again. I was talking about the students in a Yeshiva, not me. I am included in that group of "Western Christians."
Nevertheless, I would disagree with your assumption that it would be nonsense for me to think that I might have a better handle on some aspect of sound doctrine than someone else. This is the typical liberal mindset, that nobody's opinion is better than another's. That is what I call nonsense. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! If I did not think that I had something to offer, I would keep my mouth shut. The reason I speak or write is because I think I have something to say that might help because others are not considering it.
John wrote:
You equate your writings with "sound doctrine" and those who disagree with those who are unable to endure.
No, you do not understand my perspective at all. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone disagrees with me. I am sometimes wrong about things. My belief is not the standard of right and wrong. God's Word is the standard.
Now God's Word teaches us that in the last days, men will not be able to endure sound doctrine. I believe that Scripture is true. And what do I observe around me? People who prefer warm and fuzzy over what is true. I have learned that it is better to agree with truth, even when it is not warm and fuzzy.
John wrote:
Pray and think, David. God is calling you to a softer approach. Warm and fuzzy is what I am all about. Will you join me?
It is tempting, John, but no, I will not join you. I believe in sound doctrine. I believe that open rebuke is better than secret love. I believe that the wounds of a friend are faithful. I believe that a wise man loves rebuke. I believe the following passage:
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
(2 Timothy 4:1-5)
Pray and think, John. Rebuke and Reproof for the sake of Christ and Truth is what I am all about. Will you join me?
Peace be with you. David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
