In
making a link bw the revelation thread and the community thread I lost the
former as the "debate" (such as it was) on the latter
continued. I'd still kind of like someone to say more, IF more
exists to be said, about the nature of the
Revelation-Scripture-Preaching bond according to Barth. Can it be done
without rousing the now tenuously sleeping dog with nightmarish memories of Bad
Preaching? Or should I just go and read Barth, and press into service the
hitherto (purportedly) unused 90% of my brain?
Debbie
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 1/26/2005 6:02:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism
the teacher is omitted?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:50:07 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To insist on calling such "pop theology" is to insult the teaching rather than deal with the issue, itself.
John
A secret between you and I , uh ............ me. On TT insulting the teaching is permissible, insulting the teacher is somehow not. You must have forgotten. I tried this approach on my wife the other night. I told her that the red dress with the large horizontal lines (I like the blue one better ------ with the large horizontal lines) made her look fat. Didn't say she WAS fat, mind you. Anyway ............... she grounded me from the red beer cabinet for a week and forced me to wear my speed-o in public. My "public" begged me to ask forgiveness claiming that the punishment was more against them than against me. I didn't get it, but I asked anyway.....................................she said no. She says no a lot. That's why I spend so much time reading my Bible. Heck -- when I stop and think about it -- I'm a cottonpicken SAINT !!!!
Salute the power of "no." and thanks forr asking ..
J
