Oh! So you were misusing scripture to
accuse me Bill; I would have expected better from you but then one never knows
does one?
You completely miss what I have been saying here - I am
not speaking of USING God's Word ever. We are to examine
ourselves in the light of it and personally obey rather than beat others over
the head with it. My personal description of
how I understand the Godhead is just that - personal and subject to change if
and when God shows me I am wrong. I have not
yet constructed a Virginian Creed; changed the title of any member of the
Godhead or threatened any person with excommunication & heresy
who will not conform and measure up to my
light.
Can you understand what I am saying and do
you see the difference?
judyt
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:16:36 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy writes > Yes, Nathan was the prophet and his words were inspired by God since this was the anointing for his ministry - fourfold restitution was what is required under the law of Moses.So what is the problem Bill? . . .BT > The problem is, Judy, you have evidently missed the point. Without some "non-biblical" input to place my answer in context, you misunderstood my use of Scripture to say to you what "God says using God's words." No problem, I will add some commentary of my own to try to help you with the context.You are guilty of doing the very thing you expect others not to do. The pertinent statement in my use of the Nathan/David account was this: "You are the man!" Yes, David could have had Nathan killed -- but he didn't. Instead, not playing insinsate, he got the point of Nathan's parable and repented of his wrong doing; that is, he was quilty as charged; he knew it; and rather than skirt the issue, he took responsibility for his actions.How does this pertain to you? You have yet to take responsibility for yours. Concerning the use of non-biblical terminology to speak to biblical concepts, you make the following claim: "You may all do this Bill but one speaking as the 'oracles of God' says what God says using God's Words . . . Reaping what we sow is God's righteous judgment."Judy, you are complicit in doing the same thing; e.g., you have written concerning the Godhead, "They were one in all aspects and operated like a symphony," and "I would demonstrate the Godhead this way: God the Father has the thought; God the Word speaks it into existence; and God the Spirit carries it out. So you see the Godhead as one working in harmony, like a symphony."Debbie wrote this to you: "When talking about God or what he is saying to us in the Bible, I am sure I use terms which are not in any translation or manuscript of Scripture." As do you, Judy, as witnessed above. Hence, with her, why do you not also "find it strange and arbitrary to make a rule of avoiding doing so"? You do not apply your own rules to yourself. And as I said before, nor ought you have to. The problem here is not with the language you use; it is with your unreasonable expectation concerning the language of others, whether it be mine or Debbie's or anyone else's. In other words, you need to change your standards. They are untenable -- not even you can meet them. And so, the question is, are you going to continue to skirt the issue, or are you going to drop the attack on others, take responsibility for your actions and change your standards?Bill (By the way, DaveH and G: I am preparing responses to your requests. I will get them out when this conflict is resolved -- if, that is, it can be resolved)
