RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?

[ShieldsFamily]

I can’t even finish this one…I’m cracking up that we are having continual and serious discussions about “doggie doo-doo”.  Somebody help me stop laughing!!! Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?   Jonathan in Green.   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?   Jonathan wrote: > ... the 'I'll just call em liars' post etc.   David:  If you go back and look, I think you will find that YOU changed the meaning of Terry's post.  I do not remember him using the word "liar."  He said that perhaps it would have been better to use the word "lie."  In other words, his focus was upon what was said and not who said it.  This is proper TruthTalk debate.  We attack IDEAS not the people who say them.   Jonathan:  There are a few things one can say here.  To tell a lie is to be a liar.  To believe a lie is not.  So Terry says that next time he sees a lie on the list he will call it a lie.  The implication is that I am telling a lie, not that I believe a lie.  You will see that John took this the same way I did when he posted how the difference between doggy doo doo and liar is not a beneficial one.  Lance also responded by prefacing his next post to Terry as the ‘liar’ responds.  When three people see something I would suggest that ‘liar’ would be an appropriate translation for what Terry was attempting to say.  Unless he clarifies the point we are at a standstill.  And in fact, we should just leave the whole episode behind and go forward.   Jonathan continues:  Secondly, I do not think we are on TruthTalk to debate or attack anything.  I do believe you think that Truthtalk is the proper forum for this.  Our example is a God who claimed victory in weakness on the cross, not through attacking.  A debate or attack implicates the outcome of a winner.  We are not here to be winners.  I believe you inherit this from your scientific background.  In science we have objects.  In order to ‘know’ them we must master them, reduce them to their most common elements, to humiliate them.  Mastery over an object belongs only in science.  When people become objects mastery should go out the window.  Let me give an example.  I can know things about my wife; her height, weight, colour of eyes etc.  But the only way I can actually know her is by being changed by her.  In order to do that I have to become vulnerable and accept her.  On this forum the only time we will actually begin to know each other is if we become changed in the process of working out our relationships.  John is an excellent example of this.  He has come to know Lance and Bill by being changed by them.  This involves a great deal of intimacy that the scientific method lacks.  What I would beg of you is that you drop the debate/attack ideas thing and move on to intimacy with those on this forum.  Take down the wall of logic and wrestle with the persons here.  When this is done the well laid out argument becomes beneficial and people will begin to ‘hear’ you.   --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004