RE: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)

[ShieldsFamily]

Or it could be that Terry, like some of the rest of us, doesn’t read all of everyone’s posts.  I tend to ignore mormon-related posts and those that are lengthy about other subjects that don’t interest me (like perichoresis).  izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] On playing chess & On reading/interpreting the Scriptures for living (not for 'A' living)   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 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   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