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
