From: Mike Phillips (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 13 1996 - 02:59:25 EDT
> From: "KULIKOVSKY, Andrew" <AKULIKOV@baea.com.au>, on 8/13/96 1:27 PM:
> Fellow B-Greekers,
> I don not believe that it is possible for a person (no matter who
> they are) to be completely unbiased and completely objective.
> We can not get away from our preconceptions but we should
> at BE AWARE OF THEM.
I believe I have taken great pains to make this evident in my posts,
> " Then again, so was John (or whoever) in the telling
> of this (ideal) tale."
Which I own, and note the () denotes my own assumption.
> I get the impression that many people think only evangelicals have
> theological baggage - that is not true - EVERYONE HAS IT!
I believe this has been clearly expressed in my posts (which you seem
to have the most problem with) and wonder why you weren't able to discern my
admissions of bias which I include overtly and without hesitation?
> Recently someone posted a note saying that they didn't agree with
> much of what was being said about John 8:58 and wouldn't comment
> on it because 'most of the "exegesis" happening surrounding this verse
> (here) is decidedly theological and decidedly "agenda driven."'
> Now I think this is most definitely an unfair statement. Firstly, this
> did not say why He disagreed (he refrused to comment) and secondly
> the poster did not say in what way the exegesis is decidedly theological
> and agenda driven.
Have you read any of the following posts, Andrew? I actually gave my
own analysis, and included a disclaimer, i.e., your mileage may vary. I really
am at a loss to understand your failure to see plain statements in these posts
which clearly and succinctly disallow your charge? I honestly can't understand
how you could have arrived at the conclusion you do. You are welcome to your
opinion, Andrew, but I can only say that I made every conceivable effort to
make clear my own bias, my own agenda, and my own (possible) interpretation.
Given the efforts I made in this regard, I can only repeat, how have you so
selectively (mis)heard the content of these posts when the precise content you
have complained about was intentionally included by myself as the poster in
> Maybe I am assuming too much but is seems that those who don't agree with
> this are also those who don't accept Jesus as God.
> Now I am not condemning those people - just pointing out the fact.
And I can only point out that the fact you construe is no fact at all, Andrew,
and the content of my posts is the only evidence that I can offer (or that need
be offered) to make this plain. I'm certainly not against your differing
opinions, but when your differing opinions prevent you from reading the
portions of my posts that are intentionally concessional, i.e., that purposely
indicate, plainly and repeatedly, that I do not hold my posts to be decisive or
normative (as a requirement for admission to the true faith, for example) I am
appalled, Andrew. I could not have done more, and yet, for you, I did nothing
(literally). Perhaps if you reread my posts, Andrew, you could find room in
your chambers for a bit of leniency. And if not, again, I have no recourse
other than to acknowledge your chagrin, but admit myself powerless to address
your concerns, as your chagrin is entirely of your own doing in this particular
The best to you and to your house, in the name of Jesus our Lord,
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:48 EDT