From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 15:58:40 EDT
Or in other words: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".
Certainly this list is not one where sensitive souls can reside and take
what is said with any personal sensitivity. I have said many times that it
is a rare day when anybody on this list agrees with anybody else. (That
would be boring!)
OTOH some reported OFFLINE insults are cowardly at best.
I can speak with confidence about this -- since I have done it in the
past. Shame on me!
Walt
P.S. My own view is that certain theories, like Vernon's, have no personal
value to me --- but I respect them. I'm just a soft hearted (headed?) slob
who tends to respect any viewpoint until I really understand it and can
then confront it --- like I have just done with Burgy's theory. How many
others on this list will also make that claim?
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> Debbie,
> I suppose that Paul walked away and did not confront Peter (Galatians
> 2:11-21; cf. Acts 15:2), never had harsh words with Barnabas (Acts
> 15:39), and wouldn't write anything like Galatians 5:12. (Get a proper
> translation for this. AV bowdlerized it two centuries before Thomas
> Bowdler published.)
> Dave
>
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:57:52 -0500 "Debbie Mann"
> <deborahjmann@InsightBB.com> writes:
> > Thew correlation between Jesus chastising those profiteering on
> > religion and
> > someone getting off on tangents (assuming you are right which could
> > very
> > well be an example of ass u me) is slight at best. It seems that if
> > two
> > people are enjoying a conversation about something which may or may
> > not have
> > value, then the proper response for anyone who finds it silly or
> > boring is
> > to ask that the topic heading be appropriate and then delete those
> > messages.
> > Chastising someone for 'weird' ideas seems inappropriate.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 1:50 PM
> > To: iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com
> > Cc: deborahjmann@insightbb.com; asa@lists.calvin.edu;
> > michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
> > Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:19:49 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
> > <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com> writes:
> > > Debbie writes a lot of sense here; it is the closing out of love
> > > that
> > > concerns me, particularly in the bitterness and sarcasm with
> > which
> > > Vernon's
> > > observations are received.
> > >
> > > I for one don't insist you have to believe all that or agree on
> > all
> > > the
> > > details to be a Christian. But when Michael writes something
> > like:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I get fed up with the superspirituality and offensiveness of
> > > people like
> > > you
> > > > who assume that those who dont support your silly myths of
> > > numerology and
> > > > YEC have rejected the Bible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > .. then I seriously wonder how in the world you can call someone
> > > "offensive"
> > > and then reply by being equally offensive yourself. Michael has
> > > frequently
> > > on the list stated that he does not understand the maths behind
> > > Vernon's
> > > theories. Therefore surely that position of ignorance does not
> > > qualify him
> > > to state that the "numerology" is a "silly myth", and even if he
> > > was
> > > qualified to suggest it was all wrong, then a reasoned argument is
> > > far more
> > > persuasive than using perjorative language like that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have tried to answer your questions but you simply have a
> > > closed mind
> > > and
> > > > heart
> > > >
> > >
> > > .. and the same is true for you, I'm afraid; I've repeatedly
> > tried
> > > to reason
> > > with you that this is something that it's reasonable to look
> > into;
> > > that it's
> > > part of my own personal journey etc. I have never suggested that
> > > you should
> > > go along with it or that it or anything else was necessary for
> > your
> > > salvation. Not the slightest acknowledgement have I received
> > from
> > > you on
> > > this, nor any convincing argument why I should not pursue this,
> > or
> > > indeed
> > > seek to discuss it with a group of intelligent scientifically
> > > oriented
> > > fellow Christians. But everytime the subject comes up, when
> > there
> > > are
> > > individuals on the group who have responded in an intelligent
> > manner
> > > that
> > > aids discussion, we don't get very far before you come out with
> > one
> > > of your
> > > nasty sarcastic statements, like the triangular olive leaves.
> > I've
> > > tried
> > > very hard not to close out the love aspect here, but it's all I
> > can
> > > do at
> > > the moment to close out the rising anger.
> > >
> > > Iain
> > >
> > >
> > Iain,
> > How many sermons have you heard preached on Matthew 23? Is this
> > because
> > Jesus was wrong, or because we are too "nice"? I contend that we
> > have
> > changed _agape_ from a rational giving (see TDNT) to a sloppy
> > sentimentality. The Golden Rule expresses its biblical essence as
> > clearly
> > as "Love your neighbor ..." Part of an honest concern is calling a
> > shovel
> > a shovel. This is not necessarily "nice" in an age that insists
> > that
> > every idea is equally deserving of a hearing and that no one is to
> > be
> > embarassed.
> >
> > Michael has, among other activities, checked the quotations
> > presented in
> > support of YEC ideas and found them gross misrepresentations of the
> > research. He has solid grounds to call them lies. When the
> > falsehoods
> > have been repeated after the perpetrators have been notified of
> > their
> > error, he has grounds for denunciation as solid as those our Lord
> > had in
> > the sermon recorded in Matthew 23.
> >
> > As to the numerology, how does it clarify the message of scripture?
> > How
> > does counting letters make anyone a better follower of Christ? a
> > better
> > person whatever the standards? It seems rather to encourage pride
> > like
> > that of Gnostics and Kabbalists. For a specific instance, how does
> > extracting an inexact value for pi from numerological data do more
> > than
> > the "inspired" value of 3 given in II Chronicles 4:2? Is either
> > representative of an omniscient deity, who must know the
> > transcendental
> > nature of pi? I have to concur with Michael's judgment. As I see it,
> > you
> > are being suckered into wasting your time with numerological
> > drivel.
> >
> > So, does Michael have grounds for being testy? Definitely. Could he
> > be
> > sweeter? Of course. Could Jesus have gentled his denunciation of
> > the
> > scribes and Pharisees, and not whipped the dealers and
> > money-changers out
> > of the Temple? Surely. Should Christ and Michael have approached
> > matters
> > differently? Hm-mm.
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:04:19 EDT