From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Sun Jun 29 2003 - 15:08:40 EDT
>In a message dated 6/27/03 1:38:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>richard@biblewheel.com writes:
>
>> I couldn't imagine saying something like this because we come to Christ for
>> salvation from sin and death, not for things. It still sounds like a
>> misrepresentation of the Gospel for which untold thousands of Christians have
>> abandoned everything, including their lives.
>>
>> Am I still missing a piece of your puzzle?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>
>richard@biblewheel.com THEN wrote:
>
>
>I have absolutely no reason to think that you are _trying_ "to misrepresent
>the gospel" (as suggested by RFaussette), but I do think you have uncritically
>received some fundamentally flawed teachings.
>
>RFAUSSETTE DID NOT SUGGEST ANYTHING OF THE SORT - AND IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE
>TO ME THAT YOU COULD ATTRIBUTE TO ME THE POSITION YOU POSTED WHICH IS THE
>FIRST POST SNIPPED ABOVE (I NEVER SIGN "RICHARD")- AND THEN GO ON TO SAY
>ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING THAT SHEILA HAS "UNCRITICALLY RECEIVED SOME FUNDAMENTALLY
>FLAWED TEACHINGS" -
>SINCE YOU'RE NOT BEING COMPREHENSIBLE AT THIS POINT AND YOU ARE NOT OWNING UP
>TO THE POSITION YOU YOURSELF POSTED RATHER TRYING TO ASSOCIATE ME WITH
>SOMETHING I WOULD NEVER SAY THERE IS NO POINT IN DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER WITH YOU.
>I EXIT THE THREAD.
>
>rich faussette (WHO IS NOT RICHARD AT BIBLE WHEEL)
>
Rich - this only goes to show the weakness of this medium though which we struggle to communicate, and how we must remember to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. It is simply too easy to misunderstand each other.
Case in point: I have absolutely NO idea how you came to think that I attributed to you the note that I wrote and signed with my own name Richard! That is really a big misunderstanding. I wrote that note - I never implied you did it.
But I do understand how you could mistake my intent when I wrote these words:
>I have absolutely no reason to think that you
>are _trying_ "to misrepresent the gospel"
>(as suggested by RFaussette)
This was poorly worded on my part. Here are the words you wrote that I was referencing. They are from the note that you wrote and signed, found here:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200306/0370.html
You began by quoting me as above and then commenting:
>>I couldn't imagine saying something like this
>>because we come to Christ for
>>salvation from sin and death, not for things.
>>It still sounds like a
>>misrepresentation of the Gospel for which untold
>>thousands of Christians have
>>abandoned everything, including their lives.
>>
>>Am I still missing a piece of your puzzle?
>>
>>Richard
>
>I don't think Sheila is trying to misrepresent
>the gospel. Although I appreciate what you are
>saying, I also welcome what Sheila is saying.
These are your words that I refered to when I said:
I have absolutely no reason to think that you are _trying_ "to misrepresent the gospel" (as suggested by RFaussette),
Note that I underlined the word "trying" - it was my effort to say that I didn't think it was _intentional_ on Sheila's part, which seemed to be what you implied I was suggesting when you said "I don't think Sheila is TRYING to misrepresent the gospel."
So there is MY error. The phrase "as suggested by RFaussette" is ambiguous. I'm sorry.
Of course, this is really sloppy communication on my part and I am really sorry that I let it slip from my keyboard. Could you forgive me this once? I have absolutely no ill will to you or anyone on this board, and I would be very saddened to see you leave this thread merely because of a simple (or not so simple) misunderstanding.
Thanks,
Richard Amiel McGough
THE RICHARD OF THE BIBLE WHEEL FOUND AT BIBLEWHEEL.COM ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jun 29 2003 - 15:14:42 EDT