Terry:Are these the only two possibilities?
 
'God will lead you into truth' vs 'There is no such thing as truth' (Therefore, either God or the author of this _expression_ is a liar) 
 
'Multiple covenants' vs 'One unilateral covenant'(Therefore either God or the author of this teaching is a liar) 
 
David is partly correct when he says that there exists a responsibility on the part of the one writing to communicate with sufficient clarity so as to minimize confusion. 
 
On the other hand, as you are a man of maturity, let me suggest that you take more time for reflection on the above.Terry: thinking won't hurt you. Suggestion:Is it in anyway possible that BOTH are correct in some way?
 
Lance  
Sent: November 20, 2004 06:43
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Tearing down?


Jonathan in Green.


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.

One clarification coming up.  When God says that the Holy Spirit will lead you to truth, and one says that there is no such thing as truth because we all have bias, either God has lied, or the person who made that claim has lied.  When God says that there were multiple covenants, and one says there was only one unilateral covenant, either God has lied, or the individual has lied.
David would prefer that I not (call a liar a liar) attack an individual, so I will let you decide for yourself who might be the guilty party here.
Have a nice day.
Terry

Reply via email to