Re: [TruthTalk] Basis of Unity

[Judy Taylor]

When did you write your post about that which is personal to David? And no I did not MTP - My point always seems to be at odds with your point Lance - What makes you think that your point is THE POINT!!!  Engagement with other ppl can be personal or it can be impersonal - and the nature of Truth is objective rather than subjective.  Since Truth is the object of our discussion on TT personal disclosure is not mandatory. I don't find DavidM detached or impersonal - His focus here however, is not primarily on his every day personal life. Terry and Izzy do share more of themselves in that way but they also share other things.  I find it strange that you zero in on this aspect Lance since you share nothing of yourself with others (on TT anyway) and very little about what you believe.  The mandate Jesus left to his followers is "continuing in His Word - this is when we are His disciples and can know the truth which makes us free. An individuals faith/unbelief is personal to them; the object of such faith is what we discuss here.  I understand why ppl put up walls of protection that they hide behind and this is the rule rather than the exception., sadly vulnerability is no longer a Christian trait; do you get my point?  jt     On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 06:59:06 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jt:Please read my post to David on that which is 'personal'.IMO, you once again MTP. True faith is PERSONAL, is it not? True 'engagement' with one another is PERSONAL, is it not? By the by, JESUS IS A PERSON, NOT A DETACHED IDEA' When speaking of/to the 'fabulous four', it is yourself and David who speak in a detached and impersonal way. This is not true of Izzy and Terry. From: Judy Taylor   Lance, I see you making enquiries about what constitutes an ad hominem remark, apparently you can't distinguish because you continue in it yourself and this is a perfect example   "When it comes to you" personalizes this remark it so that you are no longer dealing with ideas or issues - you are taking a swipe at my person - Also you never speak for yourself - you claim to represent the opinion of "most"  which IMO is a gross exaggeration.   So, of what value is this communication, it does nothing other than try to tear down. jt   On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 06:03:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jt: BECAUSE 'through' is the operative word in your post. IMO, most have found this to be impossible when it comes to you. (The only exception(s) would be the Mormons)   From: Judy Taylor On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:49:54 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:  I love discussing ideas and I enjoy reading or listening to the ideas of others (that is why I am still on TT) --  but I hate debate. If there doesn't appear to be any chance of resolve, I would rather disengage than ride a disagreement into the gutter.   Thanks for your response Bill, But how do you know there will never be any chance of resolve if you don't follow it through?   I think this is one of the things that drives a lot of women 'nuts' about their husbands. They get into some kind of an every day conflict - she wants to talk it through and he puts up a wall. So they are in a stalemate with no resolution in sight.  What is so threatening about talking things through??    Just wondering.... judyt