Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 17, 1999 at 15:38:50 {xx2d.1sWpQHdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: *AP and AF posted by AF on November 17, 1999 at 14:52:35:
AF,
As an example: it amazed me a bit how Friend immediately seized on Greg's saying that he was "stepping down" (in connection with the Travis incident) as being inconsistent because he had not yet been reappointed in his new congregation. So there was nothing to step dopwn from. Obviously it was inconsistent and certainly untrue but it seemed pretty obvious what Greg meant at the time. Now, are we to dog Greg for lying to us on that matter? At the time Friend viewed this as being a quite important issue while most others didn't. It just seemed so irrelevant and a natural thing for Greg to say. Human communication must allow some give and take in such matters otherwise it becomes impossible. At this point I sincerely believe that further discussion of any of these issues, no matter how desirable, has actually become impossible because words and phrases no longer seem to carry any definite meaning and simple concepts, such as what "proof" means are redfined at will. It's like if you tell your kid not to buy cigarettes and so they get someone to buy them for them, are they being dishonest or not?
Gedanken