----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:39
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] On playing chess
& On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A'
living)
Thanks for the explanation Bill, but IMO your
expectation is still too high especially since Terry has written
more
than once that he does not share your understanding
of scripture. As for the Russian fellow I don't know who he
is and I doubt that Terry would either. How are
we to know how proficient he is so far as scripture is concerned?
He may be Russia's top evangelical for all we
know.
I can understand also why Terry would say he doesn't
know you. Knowing about someone is not the same as
"knowing" them. To really "know" someone takes
both time and communication. Sometimes ppl can live in the
same house or even be married to ppl and not really
"know" them - I've been on TT for quite a while and I wouldn't
get offended if Terry said the same about me because
we think differently and are at different places spiritually.
This doesn't mean that I don't
consider him a brother in the Lord and as such I don't believe he
would write
something with a deliberate intent to hurt or woun
even someone he disagreed with. jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy writes: why did Bill take up an offense over what Terry wrote? He apparently read something into
it that was not intended ...
As to your second statement, Judy: I have stated
repeatedly that I would take Terry's word concerning his intent. That is,
as far as I can tell, the most that any of us can do.
Yes, I took offense at what he initially wrote.
Here is why: we share thousands of correspondences between ourselves here on
TT. I myself have posted hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of times over
the last two years. I've talked about everything from my religious beliefs, to
my background and education, to my livelihood, to my childhood, to my family,
to my politics, to my ministry interests. You know my theology, and
you've seen me exegete Scripture on numerous occasions. I've posted on "good"
days and "bad" days; you've had opportunity to see me at my best, and you've
had opportunity to see me at my worst.
And in turn, I have had these same opportunities
with each of you.
With all of this background at his disposal,
Terry claimed that he didn't have enough "information" upon which to base
a decision, concerning "either man," myself or the Russian about whom he knew
nothing. I took that as an insult. Terry does have enough information on
me to know "whose observations would more likely approximate 'writerly
intent'" when it comes to reading Scripture (which was Lance's question),
between myself, with my background and many years of
dedication and study, about which Terry has had ample opportunity to
become acutely aware, and some Russian guy who until a couple months ago
(hypothetically) had never even read a Bible. To say that he didn't have
enough information, I thought, was a major put down.
Terry, however, claims that it was not intended
as such. He claims he doesn't know me "any better than the Russian
gentleman." He claims his yes does mean yes and his no means no, and
he claims his "not enough info to form a decision also means just what it
says." I find that disturbing, to say the least, for the above stated
reasons, but I am willing to accept his opinion on this.
I, on the other hand, do feel like I know you all
quite well; in fact, I think there is opportunity here to get to know people
better than there is in most of the personal encounters that we have. This is
because there is far more interaction between us than in most of our
relationships, and this in regards to that which matters most to us: our
personal commitment to Jesus Christ; hence we do get to "know each other"
quite well; we get to see both the best and the worst of ourselves here
on TT.
I have read Terry enough to know that he is quite
witty. I have also read him enough to know when he is employing that wit. On
this occasion, however, I may have misread him. He says I did: I'll take his
word for it.
Bill
Lance you fellows appear to be looking for a
scrap; why did Bill take up an offense
over what Terry wrote? He apparently read
something into it that was not intended
Terry's response below is to John rather than
Bill and this is what DavidM is replying
to - so now DavidM is accused by Bill of trying
to be manipulative.
IMO trying to evaluate the motives of others
after the flesh is a dangerous business.
Much better to love them and give them the
benefit of the doubt. jt
