All she had to do was compare her presentation with the actual words of mine -- it is simple enough...... ............................ it is written.
That's exactly what she did, John. Here it is again, lest you claim you "missed it."
----------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 12/19/2004 10:07:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:Dear Dissapointed, Once again you have accused me of dishonesty and of malicious motives. For that I, again, forgive you. Here is what you wrote:
John Smithson wrote:Not always and neither do you. Neither does the addicted, lost in his habit and helpless to be what he really wants to be; neither the confused and beleaguered wife who compromises to save the marriage; or the young black boy with absolutely no guidance, lost in a sea of racial regrets who cries in private at what he sees as his only choices; or the gay and homely blade who is so taken by the disappointment of his parents (in all facets of his life) that, in spite of what he believes, his need for acceptance prevails.
None of this rises to the level of reasoned excuse for failure. But the addicted "really wants" and thus, believes in what is noble and right; the beleaguered wife "compromises" and thus acknowledges what she believes to be right; the black boy who secretly weeps lives a life that trumps what he knows is right (thus the tears); and the gay and lonely son who is driven by guilt because, and only because, he "knows" what he believes but is lost without a teacher (lost does not mean lost, in this case). Tears, guilt, compromise, restless addictions are all testaments to the possession of truth. It is when we have so surrendered to the flesh that we feel no guilt, shed no tears, are aware of no compromise, and rejoice in our addictions that we are truly lost -- given over to the flesh.
So people often do not live as they believe, Linda. And there are times when we meet these people, speak what God would have us to say and it strikes at the heart of who they really are and what they really believe and they are "saved." That is what I am saying.
John
I fail to understand how I misrepresented what you said. It seems to me that you are saying that the sins (compromises and addictions) of the suffering, as well as the resulting tears and guilt, are evidence that they possess the truth. Perhaps the error is not in my maliciousness, but in your communication? So I suggest we just moveon.org.
----------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, she quoted you exactly right. Her paraphrase of what she understood you to be saying was done in the previous post. As far as I'm concerned, there is a misunderstanding between you two, but you choose to believe that she is dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting you. If you don't care to work at communication, fine, but don't blame it on Izzy. She went well beyond the patience level of most people to try and communicate with you.
John wrote:
She apologized ????????????? Where, when, for what. I missed it.
You actually responded to her apology. Following is her apology and after it is how you responded to her apology.
------------------------------------------------- Izzy wrote:
John, that's what I heard you saying. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. (Maybe we live in parallel universes?)
John wrote:
This is a script list, Linda. You cannot play innocent on this one. You heard nothing. It was in black and white. You misused what I said, actually changed it into wording that I do not believe and did not write and THAT is not done by honest hands. It is deliberate and unworthy.
-------------------------------------------------
John wrote:
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.
And in arguing this, you made the claim that those who struggle with sin and do not live in accordance with what they believe are the ones who you consider to have maintained a touch upon truth, whereas the one who does not struggle with sin is the one who has rejected truth. That part of your dialogue is what raised some eyebrows. What is at stake here is whether or not truth liberates us or causes us to struggle and live contrary to the way that we believe.
Let me spell it out real clear for you. I would take the position that those who struggle as you described, the ones who do not live in accordance with what they believe and know to be true and right, have not yet come to the Truth (Jesus Christ), or if they have touched Him in some way, they are reverting back to the law and rebuilding the things which they had once destroyed. I would say that for the most part they have only understood with their minds certain expectations of the Truth, but they have not yet known the Truth because when that happens, they are set free from this struggle that you describe. That is my perspective, but you apparently have a different one that I am still working at getting a handle on.
John wrote:
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
Is this reconciliation real or is it a theoretical abstract? Do we actually experience it as peace and freedom from the power of sin?
David Miller wrote:
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?
John wrote:
... 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 ... 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 ... 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."
So apparently you answer both in the affirmative by defining Truth differently in the two questions. Perhaps when you were speaking about people living a life without peace, being in a struggle against sin, you were defining truth there as statutes of the law? So is the one who struggles described as someone who is "under law" or "in Christ" or both?
Do you, John, continue to struggle against sin as one under the law, as that kind of person living under condemnation described in Romans 7, or is your practical experience of Truth something like what you described concerning the Person of Christ, characterized by freedom and peace being heaped upon us? Or is it sometimes one way and other times the other way? How does what you believe philosophically and theologically translate into personal experience?
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.
