From: "David Miller" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
jt: This is right on DavidM but is rejected
along with everything I write since Bill
has made a character judgment which he adds
to rather than backs off from.
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.
jt: The context of OUR discussion was never
my hypocrisy and smokescreens.
These make it a "new" discussion the original
focus being long gone..
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?
jt: Exactly; my context has been and will
continue to be the Word of God. I am
not interested in rcc church fathers or what
they had to say about anything much
less revering their writings and allowing
them to be my interpreters.
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.
jt: I'll say there is.....
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.
jt: Symphony is my word; I am not quoting
some 4th century rc father or some
other theologians doctrine and yes I take
responsibility for using the word
symphony.
Perhaps, or perhaps
she considers the use of such terms differently and
does not know
how to communicate that to you.
jt: I am past thinking I could hit "Bill
Taylor" with a water hose, he is too far
out there and is breathing some rarified air
along with Lance that normal
every day believers are not privy
to.
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."
jt: Exactly - At one point I took rc
instruction myself because in searching for truth
I thought that because it was an old system
and so mystical that there were things
there that would lead me to God.
Suffice it to say 'I'm over it' That was a broken
cistern and I'm through poking about in those
places. The mystery has been
revealed and you don't need a certificate in
Greek to understand it.
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."
jt: Of course not; I would not object to any
way that Bill would want to express his
own thoughts but just don't try and pass all
of this other stuff off on us like it is some
great revelation that only the learned are
privy to.
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.
jt: Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT without
theological terminology - in fact he used 'great
plainness of speech' - so how is it that you
can not communicate without making
things so very complicated?
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.
jt: Admittedly I have a bias about this. IMO
it is totally unnecessary and hinders rather
than helps in sharing the Good News.
Ordinary street ppl understood Jesus and they
understood Paul. They should be able to
understand us also.
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.
jt: This is true for every one of the
disciplines. I used to do Medical Transcription and
the same is true in that field, education,
whatever. This should not be so for the
believer. Maybe for dead professional
religious systems and forms of godliness.
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.
jt: Thanks for your
input DavidM - you definitely are gifted in the area of
insight
and peace making.
Blessings,
judyt
