John wrote: > 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.
Oh, so now I am an unreasonable person? Nice spin, John. What you wrote was: >> David -- you are so very transparent. But I will >> be glad to share. I do not believe in street evangelism >> for a number of reasons, by the way. But, before >> I came to that decision, I preached on the campus >> of College of the Siskyous [sp]. First, let me point out that you are a very poor writer. I'm not trying to offend you. I am speaking soberly about this accusation against me that something is wrong with my ability to understand you. You do not use conjunctive words in the proper way generally taught in high school and college grammars. I have to guess a lot about what you are actually trying to say, and I am not the kind of person that readily reads evil insults into the writings of others. If it can go either way, I try to give the benefit of the doubt on the good side rather than the evil. In this case, you had two separate sentences. It appears that you were trying to make an observation, that I am transparent, then shift to getting back on the subject, which is that you would be glad to share. It is sad that you think I am dishonest for deciding to read you in this way. Notice that your third sentence here, "But, before I came to that decision," does not utilize the conjunction "But" to negate what you just said before. I took the previous "But" in the same way, being a word you use when your thoughts jump forward and backward chronologically without any apparent rhyme or reason. My English teachers taught me that people who do this are using the words incorrectly, as verbal pauses, while they try to collect their thoughts. Although I was taught not to write this way, I have to interact with people like you who do it. I try to ignore the difficulties and get to the meat of what is being said. It seemed to me that you were going to say something about my transparency (something which I work hard to be... my life is an open book and I try to be transparent and without guile to everyone), but then you decided that you needed to get back to sharing about the questions I asked concerning your experience with evangelism. The part that stood out to me was, "I will be glad to share." Now I am saddened to learn that you really didn't mean this, but you meant to take a poke at me being "transparent," meaning that you perceived evil intentions on my part which were never really there. I still want to learn about your early campus preaching days. Did you do it only once? Twice? What kind of experience do you have that gives you a foundation upon which to reject it? What are some of the specifics of your experience that led you to reject it? John wrote: > You should get out of the reading business > if this is not clear to you. I am seriously considering not reading your posts anymore. You have no mercy towards those who cannot understand what you are trying to say. John wrote: > 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 :-) You are the man of logic and practical argumentation? LOL. Ok.... What I was doing was NOT gathering evidence AGAINST Lance. I do not have this combative, fighting personality against individuals on this list. As I have said before, from my perspective, you and I agree about 90% of the time. From your perspective, you and I agree about 10% of the time. The combative, argumentative nature is coming from you and you are projecting it upon me where it does not belong. I took your statement that you were "glad to share" to be a good example for Lance. I was encouraging Lance to be good, using your statement as a positive statement in the right direction for this discussion list. Now you make it clear that you didn't mean it. John wrote: > One additional comment, David. When you > used my comment against Lance, It was not AGAINST Lance. It was to help him see the attitude of being glad to share that I hoped he would take upon him. I still desire him to take that attitude, but now I desire for you to take that attitude too, in sincerity rather than hypocrisy and guile. John wrote: > you conveniently misquoted the comment. I did not. I quoted you exactly right. You are the one who misquoted yourself in this post, even prefacing it with, "I said something to this effect..." John wrote: > 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. I believed what you wrote was good, and if you had meant it, it would have been good. I'm glad I quoted you as I did, because it has exposed the guile in your heart and the insincerity of your words. John wrote: > Those questions left unanswered had > no answer. One of those questions was, "When you did it before, how much did you do it?" How can you possibly assert that this question does not have an answer? Can't you ball park it, like, "I preached once... here's what happened..." or "I preached every day for a semester, here's what happened..." or "I preached for the entire four years I was there at least twice a week and here's what happened..."? John wrote: > 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 apparently misunderstood me, John. I have never declined to answer questions about these subjects. I just hope you don't expect me to try and prove testimonies. A testimony is just that... a testimony. John wrote: > David, I know when one is concerned for me and > when one is only interested in inquistion. Apparently you do not. If you think I am interested in some inquisition, you are dead wrong. There is no doubt that my questions were meant to satisfy my intellectual curiosity and would benefit me rather than you, but there is no malevolent attitude on my part at all. This is an opportunity for you to give instead of receive. John wrote: >>> ... are no more involved with successful ministry >>> than a host of others -- including myself. David Miller wrote: >> 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? John wrote: > 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. I guess I should have known that you would never say anything that would reflect poorly upon yourself. It is just with your doctrine of how you are a miserable worthless sinner who continues to fall short of God's glory every day, and your history of being ex-campus preacher, ex-pastor, ex-student, ex-just about everything, I really was not sure what you meant. Thanks for the clarification. I'll have to figure out how you are involved in successful ministry while continuing to sin and continually falling short of the glory of God. That is a huge paradox for me. David Miller wrote: >> I expressed an interest in you and your ministry >> experience, but you don't care about anybody >> but yourself. John wrote: > Just because my first wife would agree > doesn't make it so. Or maybe your ex-wife knows something about her ex-husband that we all are just finding out. I'm seriously considering divorcing you myself, John. What I mean is that you think I should get out of the reading business based upon my misunderstanding of what you wrote, so maybe I should stop reading your posts. What do you think? Do you think this would be best? Should I filter out posts from you into my delete folder? Please let me know if you think this would be best. 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.
