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
