David:GIVE IT A REST. I do believe that both parties have put this matter to 'bed' as it were. Why do you continue to 'breathe life' into it? Let the moderator moderate.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 22, 2004 15:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth > John Smithson wrote: > > 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: > > 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 > > > Izzy wrote: > > 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. > ---------- "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.
