I'm feeling a bit
schizophrenic right now.
As moderator do I
need to get involved? It appears dander is flying, backs are arched, and
the ears are pinned back.
I have
been on the opposite ends of debates with both of you. Right now, I am on the
receiving end of D.Miller's lance. I would like to talk about that right now if
I may. Please understand these are my perceptions. Welcome to a walk on the
boring side of slade's mind:
This is the third (?) time I've debated D.Miller on this board. Each time I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. Whenever I make one step forward, my feet get cut out from under me and I have to place my feet in other places and defend something else or some "meaningless" side track. I also can't spend five to seven hours doing research on a single post that gets beaten down anyway. In some ways, dealing with D.Miller reminds me of my relationship with Tom (a former supervisor of mine from the early 80s). No matter what I did, the intent was misconstrued as bad and I never got a break. Even when I "finally" got something right, it was either too late or something else. It was a very frustrating time and I gave up making a relationship with the man. I was very glad when Tom moved on.
I want
to make it clear that I do not want to see D.Miller move on, nor have I given up
having a relationship with him; I have learned from D.Miller and many of
his contributions have produced beneficial results. I have grown up a
little in the last 20 years. I'm able to handle uncomfortable situations with a
lot more grace, but I can still see the point of diminishing returns
when it comes to conversations. I still throw my hands up with certain
conversations with certain people. I do not speak too often with Terry when it
comes to the righteousness of Torah. No matter what I say and no matter how I
approach the subject, his outlook has not budged one bit. It's as if I said
nothing. I've thrown my hands up in defeat. His mind is closed to this subject.
I still enjoy Terry and I still respect him (and my wife thinks he's pretty
cute), but on this topic, why stress a good thing? Is it compromise? I don't
think so. It's making "shalom bayis" (Ashkenaz for "peace in the home") in
TruthTalk. I haven't compromised on my beliefs and I continue to state them, but
I do not debate them with Terry any longer.
Now,
John and I have had vivacious conversations as well, and when two bulls lock
horns, everything is trampled. Within those emails, his love for Messiah was
clear as polished crystal and I respect him for that... even though we disagreed
on certain concepts. How is it that we were able to conclude the discussion
without throwing expletives at each other? It's because one or both of us
brought forth a kind word before it was too late. We now share the love of
Messiah for each other. Will we disagree again? Absolutely... in fact I look
forward to it because most growth is accomplished in discussing differences...
not similarities.
I AM NOT stating
these opinions and feelings in order to gang up one anyone, so please let's not
have a bash session. I do know that I cannot solve this problem because only
Dave and John can. One thing I know, you both need to be sensitive to each
other's "triggers." Ad hominids and condescending verbiage need to be
excised.
I hope you don't
think I'm prying or picking. I'm only trying to intercede.
Love to you
both.
--slade
In a message dated 12/2/2004 2:43:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even in this last post, you engage in foolish talk, using phrases like "Daddy David" and "Thanks, pal" and "white knight." Such conveys an attitude of trying to humiliate me the way some men try and win debate by emotional appeal rather than logic. This is divisive and not something which engenders friendship.It was your condenscending style that prompted my sarcasm. If I have introduced 100 differing theological points over the past months, you have disagreed with 98 or 99 of them. You don't like being put down -- neither do I. Taking it private? You know my address. But don't even start if you don't intend on being serious with solving the problem. I will be glad to hash it out with you for as long as it takes. To imagine that you would spend enough time telling me why you were not going to "explain" unless and until I asked like Lance does -- all in the name of a shorter post -- taking more time to make this argument than it would have taken to have actually given me a more explanation reveals a degree of insincerety. You want to treat grown men like children, expect the Daddy David from me. You just said we were pals, didn't you? So what was wrong with that line. You want to come charging into an ongoing discussion pretending that you are protecting the fair yound maiden, expect the White Knight label. Beats "blasphemous" and a whole host of other extremely negative comments coming from your script.
If you want to continue this thread concerning how you treat us as enemies, I think we should take this private.
Before I sign off -- I do want to make it clear that I am not angry in the slightest. The little jabs were my version of tongue-in-cheek and should have been taken that way. Such has been your explanation in the past. Such is mine now. You need to understand, David, that you are in league with a number of very well informed individuals. They have studied as much or more than you. Their personal ministries are perhaps as involved. None of us need to be treated as if we are dishonest, children in need of corrective measure, or transient Saints. At some point, there have been "spirited" discussion between myself and Jonathan, Slade, Jeff and Gary. Today, I feel very comfortable with these guys. And I think they have a measure of respect for me. Whatever problems were there have been resolved without us necessarily agreeing with each other. You and I? It has not changed at all. Am I the only one you have problems with? Not on your life -- whether in this forum or somewhere else. And the reason it follows you is because you confuse the resulting "suffering" with that of the cross of Christ. I mean, when you choose to argue over the difference of "assertion" verses "explanation," well, it is obvious that you are not even trying -- or as my mother used to say -- that you are very trying !!!
I want to respect you, David. You have much much to offer -- but not as a prophet of God to the waistland that is called the Mind of Smithson. I have been fully accepted by God for at least 47 years, now. Not once has he debated me in the way you do. Not once has He treated me with same lack of respect as you. Not once. Do you not remember just how pro-David Miller I once was? I Defended you and took a great deal of abuse for that defense. And, for a while, the idiot followed me to this forum. And look where we are today. How does one who was quite taken with you -- that would be me -- get on your wrong side? Keep saying that it is all Smithson's fault and you will never know.
What has happen, David, is this: you lost a good and loyal friend, one who was willing to go to bat for you and you don't give a crap. Actually, NOW, I am a little angry.
The ball is in your court. It's Miller time. What will you do with it?
J
