----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 03, 2004 22:11
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The
Schizophrenic God - Moderated
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.
If you want to
continue this thread concerning how you treat us as enemies, I think we
should take this private.
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.
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
