Ahh the typical Izzy can attack anyone else's character but she is given free reign?
No, Izzy should not attack anyone's character. No ad hominem arguments allowed for anyone.
Jonathan wrote:
I have made it clear many times I am sick of her maligning liberals (both politicians and theologians) in nearly every one of her posts.
Don't get so emotional. She can express her disdain for liberals, but she should not attack the character or another TruthTalk member.
Jonathan wrote:
There is never any substance behind her attacks.
Then it should be easy for you to show her the error of her ways.
Jonathan wrote:
Her slight to Lance today, while ignored by him, was uncalled for. Her holier, more scriptural than thou attitude is just plain tiring. Reprove me all you want but at least reprove her first.
Send me privately the post that you believe to be in error.
I found the following:
--------------------
Lance, that’s why I see leftist theology and politics (which are two arms of the same mindset) as directly anti-Christ. Freedom of religion in every sphere of life is NOT theocracy. Thank God we still have a Constitution which prohibits laws abridging freedom of religion—now we just need to enforce them.
BTW, I saw the co-author of “The Right Nation; Conservative Power in America”, a British man named Adrian Woodridge, on the Book review channel last night. Very interesting! He says America is going to continue ever more to the right. The book goes into contrasting the European mindset vs the American one. The Europeans are mostly anti-Christians (leftists.) I may have to buy yet another book….
--------------------
Is this what you are upset about? She was not maligning Lance. She was characterizing "leftist theology and politics" as being anti-Christ. That is her opinion. What is the problem?
Jonathan wrote:
In regards to the rest of your comments I believe you must deal with the words 'keep' before you deal with the words 'lost/perished' and 'son of perdition.' Basic syntax.
Unnecessary. Jesus said Judas was lost. Why don't you want to talk about that? He also called him the son of perdition. Acts tells us through implication that he has his own place in hell reserved for him.
Jonathan wrote:
Starting with your 'hot' words before dealing with what Jesus says leading up to them will result in improper exegesis.
Why? If I tell you that I kept my wife, then she was lost, why would you have to expound extensively about what I meant by "kept" in order to understand what I meant by kept? Seems to me that you are making this too difficult. I could be wrong. It would not be the first time.
Jonathan wrote:
If you already think that your position is a 'slam dunk' than I doubt you are willing to consider any other position.
I am willing to consider other positions, but I'm not going to go out of my way to do it. The Scriptures are pretty clear.
Jonathan wrote:
Case in point: you were proven dead wrong in your exegesis of the Abraham/sin issue.
I don't think so. Maybe you did not follow that thread too closely. What John Smithson and I agreed upon was that the Scriptures were silent about whether or not Abraham was willing for men to sleep with his wife. His presuppositions led him to believe that he was willing to share his wife, and my presuppostions led me to believe that he was willing to call his wife his sister, but not that he was willing to share his wife with other men.
Jonathan wrote:
Did you change your mind once the truth was out? Of course not.
Actually, I did. I agreed with John that what I had said was inferred from my presuppositions and not directly stated in the text. If you remember, I corrected my original statement and asked him if the revised version better fit what the text actually said without projecting my presuppositions about Abraham being a praying man who relied upon God to deliver his wife.
Jonathan wrote:
In reality I don't think you are here to discuss truth. Rather you are here to discuss your opinion (something you equate with the truth). Then again I just may be in a bad mood.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly do express my opinions, because I like to see them challenged, and I also like to challenge others to see what merit they have in what they teach.
Jonathan wrote:
I am sad to see that my plea for you to remove your trite 'peace be with you' went unheeded. At least change it up a bit every now and again. There is a reason Hallmark cards fail to move the spirit.
I had considered removing it, but I felt that this would be a move in the wrong direction. God has called me to be a man of peace, and it seems unnatural for me not to sign off without a blessing of peace. If I changed it to shalom, would that help?
May God's peace and grace be with you Jonathan,
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.
