DM says 'I do not dwell in the past and I certainly do not want to waste a lot of time searching for posts....then 'I use past statements to..then...'in the past you wrote...on Oct 21, 2004"
Earlier...I (David) find it difficult to communicate with you because you (John) seem more interested in debate rather than getting to the truth.' LOL throughout!! Ever think of 'stand-up' comedy David? One of the few things I said of youthat seemed to get your attention was the notion that you might indeed be self-deceived. David, David, David...you wrote to John concerning yourself, not him. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 10, 2004 14:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Off Topic > David Miller wrote: > >> John Smithson in the not too distant past has > >> expressed some idea that my life is characterized > >> by rejection from nearly everyone and he has used > >> that erroneous perspective as some kind of leverage > >> to try and get me to hear him > > John Smithson wrote: > > Give me the time and date for this posted comment. > > If I said it just this way and for that purpose, I will > > want to apologize. Often, David, you misquote what > > has been written. Time and date. > > I find it very difficult to communicate with you because you seem more > interested in debate rather than getting to the truth. Here you allege that > I OFTEN MISQUOTE what has been written. To my knowledge, I have NEVER > misquoted anyone in this forum. I try very hard to spell correctly and to > quote people accurately. It is hard to misquote someone when I simply copy > and paste their text. I think you probably picked the wrong word here and > meant misunderstand rather than misquote. I suspect such because I did not > quote anything in this particular post that prompted this response from you. > Also, it is true that I often misunderstand what people are trying to > communicate. So did you mean "misunderstand" rather than "misquote"? > > In regards to this topic, if you want to say that you do not have these > sentiments and that you do not remember ever having them and did not mean to > communicate such, that would be just fine. From my perspective, this would > be much more important than an apology. I do not dwell in the past and I > certainly do not want to waste a lot of time searching for posts that would > make you apologize to me. What is important to me is what you think right > now. I use past statements primarily to understand your present mindset. > > Right now, I have been wrangling with understanding you in regards to > "logic." I don't know if you just say what seems appropriate at the time, > or if you have some nuance of understanding that escapes me. For example, > in the past, you wrote to Judy the following about "logic" on Oct. 21, 2004: > > ----------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:26 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is sin? > > In a message dated 10/20/2004 7:30:59 AM > Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> John, last time I checked it was the Holy Spirit who > >> reveals God's Word, it's not Greek logic even though > >> God always makes sense. > > John Smithson wrote: > > You contradict yourself here. Why you reject logic > > everytime it is introduced into the discussion is beyond > > me. "Logic" is just another word for "making sense." > ----------------------------- > > Then, just a few days ago, you said things to me like the following: > > John Smithson wrote: > > ... what you have presented above is not "logic." > > It is a reasonable way of arriving at a decision. > > ... > > A conclusion, in logic, does not have wording that > > is not found in the major and minor premise. > > A conclusion in logic is a forced observation based > > on that has been stated before. > > ... > > logic is a specific and predicable [sic] way of confirming > > or arriving at truth. It is not the only way. > > So which is it? What are alternative methods of reasoning besides logic? > Or, is logic just another word for "making sense"? I would appreciate you > trying to explain your perspective about the role of logic in our > discussions. At times I think we are in close agreement, but then at other > times it appears that we are not. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "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.
