Now you are doing it. The First Izzy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel
Izzy, The post before yours accusing Lance of 'interrupting the conversation between others just to be negative' contains three references to the name 'Lance'. Lance did not interrupt. He was addressing a post that had a lot to do with him. Secondly, was Lance being negative? The post he was responding to was in regards to David's question on interpreting scripture based upon how badly we interpret each other's emails. It was not a negative post but rather began to address David's question albeit in Lance's sometimes cryptic short style. It should be said however, unpacking what appears to be a short cryptic Lance post can often be a rewarding experience. It does take patience and hard work. Thirdly, this is a public forum. There are no personal conversations going on that are not invites to others to join in. You will probably realize the irony that by accusing Lance it is your post that interjects a certain negativeness to the conversation, not Lance's. There seems to be two Izzy's on this board. One does delightful posts regarding the work of the Spirit in her life and her family. The other does one or two liners that are very sarcastic and lack edification. I like the first Izzy. The second one has been extremely prevalent over the last 4 months. Lance constantly appeals to me that the first Izzy is the real Izzy, that the first Izzy displays God's heart. You may be surprised that your biggest supporter on this forum is Lance. I should note that there often seems to be two Jonathan's on this forum as well. It is something I am attempting to address, however futile my attempts have been so far. Jonathan Hughes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel Please explain the 'law of exclusivity' (#615) to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 16, 2004 08:51 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Gospel > Lance, You seem to be developing the bad habit of interrupting the > conversation between others just to be negative. Izzy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel > > 'how can we possibly interpret Scripture..' Some do some of the time and, > some don't some of the time. You demonstrate this reality in your > engagements with many over time on TT. As you well know, David, believers > misinterpret scripture often and, for long periods of time. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: November 15, 2004 17:26 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Gospel > > > > Jonathan wrote: > > > Both of them have to communicate through this edge. > > > You seem to be able to see John's edge but not David's. > > > When Lance points this out ... > > > > I thought Lance sincerely questioned the possibility of there being an > edge. > > Did I miss something? > > > > Lance, do I try and communicate through "an edge," whatever that means? > > > > I think Suzy said it best when she said that I try and challenge people on > > what they believe. I'm like the old lady asking, "where's the beef"? I'm > > still a student, a work in progress. > > > > Jonathan wrote: > > > Questioning people's salvation has become a recurring theme > > > on this forum for one of its cliques. They believe that it is a > > > nice and effective tactic. In reality, it is a hindrance to dialogue. > > > > I hope you do not perceive any of my posts as questioning someone's > > salvation. I get really tired of this art that some here have of reading > > between the lines and accepting their interpretation as truth even when > the > > author tells us that the reading was wrong. If any of us do this in > direct > > correspondence with each other, how can we possibly interpret Scripture > when > > there is not audible voice to tell us that we misunderstood what we read? > > > > Peace be with you. > > David Miller. This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s�y rattachant contiennent de l�information confidentielle et privil�gi�e. Si vous n��tes pas le destinataire vis�, s.v.p. en informer imm�diatement son exp�diteur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et d�truire toute copie (�lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis� est interdite et peut �tre ill�gale. Merci de votre coop�ration relativement au message susmentionn�. ---------- "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. ---------- "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.
