|
I do. But, you did indeed MTP. Jesus said: 'I am
the way, the truth and the life. No (person) comes to the Father but by me.'
Jesus asked:'Who do (persons) say that I am?' When one states:One Being, three
persons', of whom (personal) would we be speaking? The question WHO always takes
precedence over WHAT when speaking of our Lord.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 07, 2005 08:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Basis of
Unity
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
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.
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
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)
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
|
