Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)

Merv wrote:
" (On the rare occasions) when I force myself to wait a day before responding, my temperature has subsided and if I even still feel the need to respond at all then what I say is usually a purer response without the emotional garble or defensiveness. "

Indeed, this is one of the key reasons behind the "4 posts per day limit", to encourage cooler, more thoughtful responses. I know we don't enforce it as uniformly and consistently as we should but waiting a day to cool off has helped me avoid many a response I would have regretted. Unfortunately, I haven't avoided all of them.

Randy

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Merv
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:05 AM
  Subject: Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)

  George Murphy wrote:
    Well, let's get our terminology clear. David objected to my statement that II Tim.3:16 wasn't a "standard proof text" used in support of the inerrancy of scripture. Opportunely, a post from another list participant on another thread appealed to that text in such a way & I pointed that out as an example of what I meant. Is that "snarkiness"?

    I pursue the point not because I care much if someone calls me snarky but because I object to the notion that showing an argument to be wrong is bad etiquette.
  And I do not suggest that it is [bad etiquette]. Our common quest for truth means speaking against and rooting out error in others as well as our own. I'm not suggesting that we should all be tiptoeing in fear of causing offense. Sensible middle ground must exist between Psalm 141:5 (Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me.) and Gal. 6:1 (...you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness...)

    Cf. C.S. Lewis's account of his first conversation with his tutor in which the older man concluding with "Do you not then see that you have no right to any opinion on the matter?" Lewis was - at least retrospectively - appreciative of that no-nonsense approach.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

  I usually find that most of my posts that I later find regrettable are ones I posted immediately in the heat of the moment when a response seemed so urgently needed. (On the rare occasions) when I force myself to wait a day before responding, my temperature has subsided and if I even still feel the need to respond at all then what I say is usually a purer response without the emotional garble or defensiveness. Why create additional stumbling blocks in front of someone we are presuming to correct? As much as I respect C.S. Lewis or the sentiment of his mentor --even were they here, they would have no right to a differing opinion! This is all I intend to contribute on this thread.

  Shalom,
  --Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 12 10:11:30 2008