From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Re: Now ... Just what ARE Polemics?
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:48:56 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92111911312237@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:24:01 CST
>From:         Jesse <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Now ... Just what ARE Polemics?
>Dear Bill ;
>
>Question :
>
>"Why BE on Christia if TRUTH, its promulgation, and application, are NOT our
>"Prime Directive"?
>I am puzzled ... really.  Our LOVE for one another ... our UNITY with one
>another are all defined within the perameters of the Word of God.

I read christia through the newsreader bit.listserv.christia, and don't
have ready access to the normal listserv functions, but I am sure the
listowners send out an introductory message when people sign up.  The
announcement that got me started said something about sharing and
encouraging each other.  Why be on CHRISTIA?  Because here I find the
encouragement not found in the workplace.  Here I find friends who,
although they only know my name, love me, pray for me, and talk to
me more sincerely than other people who know me.

That is probably why many people here find polemics so out of place.
Polemics are necessarily adversarial.  Polemics require opponents.
And we came here to find support and encouragement.

Perhaps we need to start a new newsgroup, bit.listserv.christia.polemics,
to serve the need for fine-tuning our doctrine.  The problem with these
polemics is that is makes us fight each other, and most of us would rather
fight the real enemy, and not a brother or sister whose doctrine is not
quite fine tuned.

>Why is it so wrong to want to see the issuing of Truth as one's motive for
>wanting to be on Christia?  Does not Truth set us free?

It would only be wrong if that is outside the scope of what the list owners 
set the list up for.  Remember that the context determines when something
is right or wrong.  Only Christ sets us free.  Check the context of the
verse you are quoting.

>Bill, I am not going to try to put you on the spot, but I really would like
>some others to come up with real evidence of my alleged pugnaciousness.
>I am not trying to evade any possible culpability here.  I am really NOT
>convinced as to their charges.
>Can they cite some cases and let me see what they are referring to?

Jesse, please be patient with me, but I think what you are asking for
is impossible.  Not that many couldn't play back to you what you have
said, but that it would be impossible for you to understand the evidence.

Think about it for a minute.  If people sent you the dictionary definition
of a word that is not normally in their vocabularies so you could understand 
them, and your reaction was, in essence, to declare the dictionary wrong,
by re-defining what you meant by the word, then do you think it would be 
possible for us to send you evidences of your condescending pugnaciousness?

We might send you one of your statements, e.g., X.  Your logic might well go 
like this:

I, Jesse, said X.  I, Jesse, am never condescending or pugnacious.  
Therefore, it necessarily follows that X is not condescending or pugnacious.

The problem is with perception.  You might never perceive yourself to be
condescending or pugnacious, but your opinion is not the important one in
this argument.  If the readers of Christia perceive you to be that way,
then just accept that you are.  You are not an unprejudiced witness in
this case.  Your testimony is therefore suspicious.

I still play a little basketball, the kind where there are no referrees.
It is so ludicrous to watch two individuals shouting at each other,
"You charged me!"  "You blocked me!" over and over, ad absurdum.
That is why we need referees.  In our games, we just chalk this up
to "incidental contact," and get on with the game.  After awhile, 
everyone learns that taking a charge only gets you hurt but doesn't
get you the ball, so we go on in a variant of the game that has no
charging violations.

You see, the participants cannot see as clearly as the referrees, and
are not nearly as objective.  Maybe you should listen to some of your
brethren who are trying to referee.

--
Bill Chapman, Box 1262, Mississippi State, MS  39762
<BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>           (601) 325-2042
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia