David Miller wrote to Lance:
>>John said, "I will be glad to share." Why
>>can't you have the same loving attitude?
John wrote:
>John also said something about your
>questioning as being transparent.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and took this statement of
yours in a positive sense. I considered it to mean that you had found me
honest and open in my dialogue, and, therefore, you were glad to share. I said something to this effect: "You are so transparent but I will be glad to share ....... When this word "but" is used in the context of my statement, no reasonable person would fail to understand the contrast being made, David. You should get out of the reading business if this is not clear to you. " ... you are transparent but I will share [anyway] " is the contextual situation. I would have let it go except that you seemed to be quoting me against Lance in order to make your point. That is what you were doing. Gathering evidence against Lance. And you made the big mistake of including me -- the man of logic and practical argumentation. Perhaps you will think twice next time :-) Now
you make it clear that you meant to malign me with this comment. Not true. I was merely acknowledging what is obvious. You disappoint me, John. Back acha long ago, David.
One additional comment, David. When you used my comment against Lance, you conveniently misquoted the comment. You do this often -- misquoting, changing the order of statements -- that sort of thing, like we will not notice. My sentence began with the contrasting "But." You dropped it intentionally to make a very different point. Sad indeed.
John wrote:Fair enough. I have made the same decision about you some time ago. I expressed an interest in you and your ministry
>I answered your initial questioning about my
>the steet [sic] preaching issue
No, you did not. Yes I did. Those questions left unanswered had no answer. I actually know a lot of people. None of them know you. So, no point in going over names. In fact, I answered more questions than you are willing to answer. Need I remind you of your comment to the effect that you were not going to be answering questions about your spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing, out of body experiences and raising the dead)? You answered only a few of the questions. This is why I followed up with some other questions, hoping you would answer. David, I know when one is concerned for me and when one is only interested in inquistion.
John wrote:
>You and the FMO ...
What is FMO? [the] foul mouthed one
John wrote:
>... are no more involved with successful ministry
>than a host of others -- including myself.
What do you mean? Are you implying that none of us are involved in
successful ministry, or are you trying to imply that everyone here is
involved with successful ministry? I do not regard this as an honest question. You offer an option when, in fact, my question can be understood in only one way, by reasonable people. Your first "option" would reflect poorly on me, as a minister of the gospel of Grace as well as my friends..........not much of an option.
John wrote:
>As far as pursuing the discussion further
>---- really, I am not interested.
I retract what I said about your attitude of love. You are undeserving of
the benefit of the doubt.
experience, but you don't care about anybody but yourself. Just because my first wife would agree doesn't make it so.
John wrote:
>I have my opinion about SP and the problems
>they cause for the remaining Christian community.
And you don't care to share that opinion? I am very interested in both your
opinion and your experiential background in this area. You come closer to this with Lance and Bill than with me. So, good try but no sale. Why are you so
secretive about it? Secretive ??!! I told you about my ministry, where it took place, and the several ministries I have or am involved with -- no secrets here David. But, once again, you are so very transparent.
David Miller.
