RE: Don Harris
(09-14-2009 05:52 AM)grafted Wrote: And what does that comment say... taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports- in no place, shape, form, or fashion does that elude to wanting to make it appealing. That is a word used by you, placed in my mouth.
How does me not taking the report as 100% fact until confirmation is acquired equate to you suspecting I wish to "season their gospel"? Did I ever state that?
No!, you choose to put those words in my mouth, as my intent, and at no time have I ever stated "take them with a grain of salt".
Let's revisit THIRD GRADE reading comprehension.
What did I say.
Quote:"As for keeping up with them, that isn't my calling, though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is; taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports."
And what does that sentence say, pay close attention to the semicolon. What does that do to the sentence and the structure?
As for "keeping up with them, that isn't my calling" which clearly indicates that I am not called to keep up with them; though as my other post states "to be a fly on the wall there would be interesting, hope a transcript appears somewhere." Now why would I want that, perhaps to "bring into the light" what they might be hiding in darkness? Does that at any point, shape, form, or fashion equate to me having any belief in them, and their message? No it does not.
Quote:though it is nice to read the reports of those who's calling it is;
As we have already shown, it is not my calling, and as the above quote shows, I would entertain reading the reports of those whose calling it is.
[quote]taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by other reports
That would mean that what is to the right of semicolon is still a part of the sentence, (ref: independent clause). That would mean that "I would mean that what ever report I read from any person who did record it, with a grain of salt, [not taken as 100% fact,] without confirmation of other reports."
At no place or time did I ever elude to "make it appealing". That is an invention by you, placed in my mouth, where it was never uttered from.
Quote:You seem to want to play both sides. Your comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Michael Rood and Don Harris are not all that bad. Just take them with a grain of salt - hence my statement - season their gospel of hatred to make it appealing ---- you don't want to outright reject them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. That is not scriptural.
At no time have I played both sides, and again you are inventing things- placing false intent.
My comments continually point to the fact that "teachers" like Rood and Harris are not all that bad- where was that ever stated? Do you state that because I refuse to believe any first reports without confirmation; two or more. At what point does that equate me having any personal belief in them? Again you are falsely accusing.
Who is being scriptural and who is not Sheep.
I apologize for offending you. It was not my intent. My distaste for Hebrew Roots comes from "intimate" knowledge of the movement and it's promoters, who are enemies of the Gospel and sometimes that reflects on my responses.
I find it difficult to understand your position because you appear to believe that you can pick out the good and leave the bad when it comes to the teachers on GLC, thus my comments about "seasoning". I think Vic did a good job explaining why this won't work. It seems to be a concept that is hard to grasp because so many are taught that we can pick and choose from what we hear and decide what to keep and throw out the rest depending on our own perceptions. Unfortunately this ends with people getting messed up with a skewed view of the truth. This is what I meant by you playing both sides - because you are willing to listen to the GLC teachers and try to "play them" to see if they have anything worthwhile to listen to - which would "make it appealing".
Usually when someone says that they "take it with a grain of salt", they mean they still accept what is said, but are a bit wary. I don't see your position as being "wary". You appear to want to give the benefit of the doubt, which is a different perspective and means that you are not able to dismiss a teaching very easily because you want to see the good in it. At least that is what I understand from your posts which indicate that you listen to GLC - as seems to be a common practice with you. This makes it appear as if you think they have something worthwhile to "teach" in spite of all that we shown you contrary to that.
If people don't approve or like our research, then then can always do the research for themselves - which I believe the Scriptures tell us to do. If people depend on questionable sources for their "research" then they are no closer to the truth than when they started.