David Miller wrote: >> I think the problem here, Bill, is that you are changing >> the context of Judy's statements when you critique them >> as evidence of hypocrisy. Judy is trying to bring back >> that context in her paragraph above.
Bill Taylor wrote: > Not so, David. Her statements above are a smokescreen. > She is attempting to find a way to get away from the context > of our discussion. Hmmm. Might I suggest, then, that perhaps you both are approaching the discussion from different contexts? In other words, you have a foundation and goal for speaking which differs from Judy's? Bill Taylor wrote: > This has been a discussion on one subject and one only > throughout: her unreasonable standard of precluding the > use of non-biblical terminology to speak of biblical matters; > the criticisms which grow out of this; and her own violation > of this standard. >From where I sit, there is much misunderstanding between you two. Bill Taylor wrote: > The evidence of hypocrisy is her unwillingness to admit that > she does the very thing she criticizes others for doing. She > has on many ocassions criticized me, as well as others here > on TT, for using the term "perichoresis" to describe the inner > relationships of the Trinity. She knows this and you know it, > David. Yet she uses the word "symphony" in her description > of the same inner relations. When confronted about it, she > skirts the question and makes excuses, instead of taking > responsibility for her comments. This is hypocrisy. Perhaps, or perhaps she considers the use of such terms differently and does not know how to communicate that to you. I certainly think there is a lot of difference between her use of the word "symphony" and your use of the word "perichoresis." For starters, symphony is a word which most people are familiar with and therefore has some ability to communicate a thought. "Periochoresis," on the other hand, has absolutely no meaning to most people and must be thoroughly stuided before even beginning to use the word. The uneducated are likely to think, "why bother." Bill Taylor wrote: > My only request has been that she recognize this and change > her unrealistic expectation of others, concerning the language > they use to speak about God. I think you misunderstand exactly what she is asking of you in regards to the language you use to speak about God. I doubt Judy would have had any problem with you using the word "symphony." Bill Taylor wrote: > ... this is not about "creeds." It is about her disdain for > the use of theological terminology to speak of biblical > concepts and her refusal to acknowledge that she too > uses theologically loaded terms to speak of the same. You seem to have a point here. Perhaps there is another issue at work here, and that is Judy's bias against intellectualizing and complicating simple matters. As a scientist, I had experienced this for all the scientific words and terminology we used. In fact, my language became such that I could barely communicate well on biological issues with anyone who was not a scientist already familiar with the terms and concepts with which I worked. The language that assisted me with in depth study and analysis isolated me from those who I wished the most to share it with. Sorry to cut this short. I'm being called away right now. I did want to say thank you for the suggestion about "non-Biblical" rather than "un-Biblical." That does better communicate the meaning. Thank you. 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.
