There's NO BLASPHEMING goin' on, David! That which, IMO, is IN QUESTION
HERE, has nothing to do with your facility as a rationalist, (i.e. your back
and forth with John over logic via syntax) rather, it's your own discerning
'heart'(?). You still don't know yourself, David.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: December 19, 2005 15:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s),
Linda and David
John, if you have a problem with inductive logic, substitute "blasphemy"
everywhere you see my word "error" and I stand behind those comments just
the same. That should be obvious to you because the word I used was a
more
general word that included blasphemy as an error.
John, you changed words when you wrote:
One most definitely can be in error without
being blasphemous. But one cannot blaspheme
without being guilty of blasphemy.
You are completely changing the discussion now by making irrelevant
logical
statements and dropping the word "accusing" from what I had said.
Considering someone guilty of blasphemy and accusing someone of blasphemy
is
not the same thing. That was my point. Does this distinction escape your
mind? I said nothing to repudiate the idea that one cannot blaspheme
without being guilty of blasphemy. Your original statement was, "One
simply
cannot tell another to "stop the blasphemy" without, at the same time and
in
the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy." Do you see how you changed
the
word "accusing" to "being guilty of"? I can indeed tell someone to stop
the
blasphemy without being an accuser. I'm talking about an attitude of the
heart.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s),
Linda and David
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John wrote:
> "techniccally" is the word of a legalist justifying
> what he has actually done while pretending to
> be fully consistent. One simply cannot tell another
> to "stop the blasphemy" without, at the same time
> and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy.
There is a distinction between holding to an opinion about someone being
in
error and accusing someone of an error.
Here we go again -- David introducing words and phrases into the
discussion that were not a part of the originial intent. I said this: One
simply cannot tell another
to "stop the blasphemy" without, at the same time
and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy
If you would stick to the very wording I used, that would be good.
"Error"
includes any number of categories including blasphemy. "Error " and
"blasphemy" are not the same -- one is much broader in meaning and
definition that the other. One most definitely can be in error without
being blasphemous. But one cannot blaspheme without being guilty of
blasphemy.
None of the following has anything to do with what I said above. .
Part of this distinction has to do
with the attitude of our heart. It is important to understand this
distinction if we are to correct others in love.
Many times my children fall into error. If I took the approach of
accusing
them of error, it could crush their spirit. Instead, I can hold to the
opinion that they are in error and seek to correct the problem in love.
There is indeed a difference between working to stop blasphemy and
accusing
someone of blasphemy. Even when Jesus warned about blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, he did not accuse anyone in particular. He held to an opinion
that those who confused the good work of the Holy Spirit with the work of
Satan were in great danger of unforgiveable blasphemy.
You might also consider the woman taken in adultery. Jesus held to the
opinion that she had sinned, yet he told the woman that he did not
condemn
(accuse) her. In other words, Jesus held to the opinion that she was
wrong
to commit adultery without accusing the woman of adultery. I hope you
understand this distinction. It is an important one and not merely the
rhetoric of a legalistic sophist.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how
you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
