Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00585)

Thanks Nigel, I guessed that.

Interesting exchanges -- makes us think.

Dallas


-----Original Message-----
From: nhcareyta [mailto:nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:59 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: Creating authority under sweet name of "original
teaching"


Hello Dallas
Thank you for your reply.
Dishonesty has a number of definitions including "speaking 
untruthfully", "unjustly accusatory" and "manipulation of facts to 
facilitate a desired end."
The reference was of a generic nature, specificity requiring 
undesirable finger pointing. To the extent where someone is required 
to continually defend themselves where no offence has occurred, it is 
to be hoped that certain contributors will refrain from unjust and 
emotive accusation or implication.
Kind regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Sept 20 2004
> 
> Dear Nigel:
> 
> "Dishonesty" is a strong word, and needs precising.
> 
> Can you be more specific as to what points have not been answered
> satisfactorily?
> 
> Are we talking history?
> 
> If that is so, then there are documents available to help us 
understand what
> happened in the past even if presently, we cannot undo that "past."
> 
> The problem with documents is that some cherished notions may have 
to be
> abandoned and that hurts. So ? "There is no religion higher 
than
> truth." Is our motto.
> 
> Perhaps if those are made into a list help can be given
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dal
> =-------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nhcareyta
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:06 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Creating authority under sweet name of "original teaching"
> 
> Perry
> 
> For a number of weeks, you and some of your well-meaning colleagues 
> have patiently repeated and re-repeated certain points of view, due 
> to the seeming inability of some contributors to understand your 
> points.
> 
> Finally, you have challenged this apparent inability by suggesting 
> dishonesty. I concur, for such it is.
> 
> The forms of dishonesty you have highlighted are highly prized in 
> political circles, being age old techniques used to avoid the truth 
> of matters.
> Failing to answer questions directly, muddying the waters with 
> unrelated information, diverting the conversation onto other topics 
> and false accusations of an unsubstantiated nature are just some of 
> methods which have clearly been used by some, whether consciously 
or 
> unconsciously, in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible.
> In essence, these are acts of violence because they summarily 
dismiss 
> others' points of view and attempt to overpower and dominate the 
> agenda with their own dogma.
> This is disappointing for a discussion group such as this. Hiding 
> behind the respectability of free intellectual discussion to avoid 
> issues and unjustly condemn others is unethical and unacceptable.
> This does not manifest freedom, it is merely the use of 
disreputable 
> tools of disempowerment to profess blind faith.
> Best wishes to you and others for your quest for truth in debate.
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links




Yahoo! Groups Links