I am very surprised by this exchange. Surely you know as a counselor how
important it is in communication for the one who listens to repeat back what
they are hearing in their own words. This is exactly what Izzy was doing
here. She is not guilty of being dishonest as you accuse her. Please stop
being so judgemental. She gave you ample opportunity to clarify what you
meant, even apologizing to you if she misunderstood you, and instead of
using this as an opportunity to clarify your position, you used it to tell
her that she cannot "play innocent." This is shameful coming from a
counselor.
David, this is a script list. When one is misquoted, it is a deliberate act. My words were and are in black and white. If you care not to characterize Izzy's actions as "deliberate," certainly you must agree that her misrepresentations were preventable. All she had to do was compare her presentation with the actual words of mine -- it is simple enough.................................. it is written.
I did explain what I meant.
She apologized ????????????? Where, when, for what. I missed it. but it is not necesssary.
As a pastoral counselor of the Cut To The Chase philosophy, I tell people they are not beinging honest quite often. But you know absolutely nothing about me as a counselor -- so your appeal to me as such only bears the marks of your bias, on that matter (counseling) and will have no or little impact on me for that very reason. I don't challenge you as a "street preacher," or a "scientist" or a "child of God" for that matter.
I am still interested in hearing you explain what you meant if Izzy got it
wrong.
There is no if in this situation. To misunderstand what I meant is one thing -- to misquote what I said is quite another. Let's move. Efforts to guilt complex me are fruitless.
It sounds to me like you were saying that the evidence of someone
having truth is if they struggle with sin, whereas the evidence of someone
rejecting truth is if they have no struggle with sin. Therefore, the
homosexual who is torn by his lust for sexual relations with someone of the
same sex is following the truth whereas the person who gives himself over to
homosexuality and has no struggle is the one who has forsaken truth. This
is what I heard you say, and this is what I heard Izzy reiterate you as
saying.
I have made no out of body appearances of late. You heard nothing. On the other hand, if your particular and theological bias prevents you from understanding that when I write nearly anything, I am extremely precise in my wording, that may be something else ---- a problem for you. If I speak of the guilt of the gay blade -- then "guilt" is the subject matter. If I speak of compromise on the part of a beleaguered wife, then "compromise" is the subject matter. I was arguing -- as you most certainly should know -- that we often do things that are not in accordance with what we actually believe and know to be true or right.......that was the ultimate point of the discussion.
If you believe something else, then please clarify your position.
Our goal is to understand one another clearly, not to fight and divide over
who is dishonest and unworthy. Set aside personal judgments of one another
and discuss the subject matter.
:-)
The question is: what do you believe the relationship is between truth and
sin? Is the one who embraces truth set free from sin and walks in peace, or
is the one who embraces truth in a constant struggle with sin and lives a
life of constant turmoil and sense of continuing episodes of feelings of
guilt?
Now, this question has nothing to do with the point I clearly and precisely made in the posts "in question." So, here we go with a new thread. Fine with me.
The question is:� what do you believe the relationship is between truth and
sin?�
There is "truth" that is conceptual, fixed, and, if philosphical, of little comparative benefit to those who are concerned about living and growing and becoming. And, in matters involving the Divine, there is a "truth" that goes to the very essence of God in Christ., and by that, I mean to say that it is a part of the central and ultimate nature of the Living God. He is Truth and in Him there is no lie. I possess truth -- He IS Truth. One should never be said of the other. They are diametrically opposed. Because of this biblical presentation, Truth is as dynamic and vital and personal as is God Himself. I am flesh and blood -- He is Truth, and Spirit, and Love (that's not to say that He is a being -- so let's not go off on that straw dog.)
OK, having established this concept (whether you agree or not), I can say that the relationship, as you put it, between truth and sin is Jesus Christ. Now, I know that is not what you may have thought I might say, but there it is. God, who cannot sin is way over there ---------- sin and those who commit sin are way over here. It is the grace and effort of a wonderfully thoughtful God, who empties Himself, becomes like His creation (mankind) in every respect, is taught the ways of life (a learning experience, if you will), establishes Himself as Savior and Best Friend on the Cross, and continues the benefit of the Cross in (dia) the Resurrection. He, God in Christ, reconciles the two extremes ---------- the profoundly sinless Essence with those who have no idea how to function without sin and shortcomings. It is in this sense, that the incarnate Christ reconciled mankind and God (hopefully some who did not understand this language before might at least see a gleamer of sensibility in these words, now).
Is the one who embraces truth set free from sin and walks in peace, or
is the one who embraces truth in a constant struggle with sin and lives a
life of constant turmoil and sense of continuing episodes of feelings of
guilt?
Here, using the defintions above, you are speaking of two very different things; Is the one who embraces truth set free from sin and walks in peace ...... is a question (from my point of view -- bias, if you will) that has to do with the Person of Christ (the Truth), indwelling, historical, forgiving, dying, living, caring, judging, gathering His own unto Himself ------- all at the same moment in time and perpetual in the face of time. Freedom and peace, in this case, is heeped upon us , David -- a gracious and unmerited (pardon the redunancy) gift, a fulfillment of the First Covenant. The second question, .......... is the one who embraces truth in a constant struggle with sin and lives a life of constant turmoil and sense of continuing episodes of feelings of
guilt? has so many undefined aspects to it that it is hard to answer. But I will try. "Truth" here, means, to me, a precept , a statute, a stated concept, especially from the mind and heart of God, the Law. The simple answer is "yes." Understand that each person will see his/her lesser existence with differing appreciation. Some will be fully aware of a struggle, or of guilt, or of the constant turmoil of this lesser existence. Others will know that the relationship with Truth trumps all of these negatives and will seek to encourage and uplifts those who have no sight (as yet) for this spiritual realization (ye who are spiritual help those who are weak).
I hasten to add, these words and thoughts are mine (not original but mine). Let's not waste time tying me to someone. In some cases, I would be honored -- but the tactic is usually one of "guilt by association." So these words and thoughts are mine. To Lance or Jon or Bill, they may seem immature but hopeful. To David, Judy, Izzy, they may be associated with the phiosophies of the world and ignored (I wish !!) or assulted.
I can more than handle the assult, but do not make the mistake of association. You are dealing with the thinking of John David Smithson, a proud carpenter and a man who, if truth be told, would cause you to be jealous with stories of what God has done for him while waiting for him to return Home.
LET'S GET IT ON 11111111111111111111111 :-)
