RE: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation

[ShieldsFamily]

JD, your ego gets SO in the way that it always ends up being all about you.  Calling DM “nuts” is an ad hom attack, and entirely uncalled for.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:02 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation         -----Original Message----- From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:11:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation David Miller wrote: >> I would think from comments you have made that your >> position would be that there is a little bit of doubt in all >> of us.  Am I mistaken about that?   John wrote: > Yes ... > Knowing you are right in some esoteric way > is a fantasy of the first order.   David Miller wrote: >> You claim that this teaching of Christ does not >> include us.  From my perspective, this emanates >> from doubt and unbelief.   John wrote: > Soooo, if one disagrees with you, the > problem is always one of doubt and disbelief?   If I am speaking truth, yes, but the real point is that when somebody disagrees with Christ, the reason is doubt and unbelief. So when you are wrong, it is because of doubts and unbelief.  I'll jot that down.    John wrote: > When you disagree with me, David, it is > because you are wrong !!  That'what I think.   How can I be wrong if knowing you are right is a fantasy? Do you want to repent and correctly represent what I actually said, in black and white? Try it David.   try honestly representing my rhetoric.   You make a habit of not doing so.  You are filled with contradictions here that make further conversation impossible without first resolving the issue of whether or not we can know anything. Honesty is the only barrier, here.    When I say that your perspective seems to be that there is a little doubt and unbelief in all of us, you disagree.  Yet, you then turn around and claim that knowing we are right about something is a fantasy. Not what I said.   You can't have it both ways. No kidding and you can't BS your way into a winning position.  We obviously have a huge disconnect here in regards to our terms of knowledge, knowing, doubt, and unbelief.  You must be working from some other definitions of these words or you are a completely irrational person.  LOL  -- what else can I do but laugh.    John wrote: > It never has crossed my mind that you > were one of doubt and disbelief.   Well, you should be thinking of me that way, because I have quite a bit of doubt and unbelief.  If I did not, I would be walking on water and doing many of the other things that Jesus said those who believed upon him would do (John 14:12).  When did we move the discussion from understanding didache to working miracles? I can't keep up, David.   Which is it?  Are we talking about I Co 8 or Matt 17:20 ????   John wrote: > Guaranteed I am not.   And you think I am arrogant and you are not?  This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard on TruthTalk.  Bless your heart, DAvid  -- you're NUTS.  lllol   If you know any way to explain what doubt and unbelief and knowledge mean to you, please try.  We have grossly different understandings of these words Not at all, David.  We have grossly different agenda's in a discussion.  When I discuss,  I am comparing notes and arguing my point.   When you "debate,"  it is all about setting the other guy] up so you make him sound stupid.   Finally, at the end of this post  --  the agenda surfaces.  David, in his mind, thinks that he ONCE AGAIN thoroughly discredited Smithson  on point of character, thus, avoiding the need to continue a risky comparison of ideas with the little Englishman           You claim we can't know anything and yet at the same time not have doubt and unbelief.  When my mind hears that, it reacts like that robot on "Lost in Space" saying, "It does not compute."  [I borrowed from my childhood memories of "Lost in Space" just for Lance.  :-)]   I would like to discuss this subject further, but cannot until you define the terms doubt, unbelief, knowledge, faith, and explain the relationship between doubt and unbelief to knowledge and faith. If you are afraid to continue, fine.  When you decided to honestly represent my statements,  we can have a beneficial discussion. We have the same definitions  -- but you feel no need to correctly quote my position.   And you think people do not notice this rather elementary (school) tactic???   There are connections between these words that are very important for how I understand our relationship to the Word (the Logos, Christ, Scripture, etc.).   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.