First, I gotta say -- you got it! Yep, that Cicilian - INCONTHEIVABLE! (But
you forgot the all-important lisp! (By the way, do you think there is some
sort of subliminal linguistic sadism in the word "lisp," seeing that those
afflicted with it can not properly pronounce it? (Uhhh, before you take me
seriously on that ... it was a joke! (Oh yeah, one last thing, I have a
hobby of seeing how deeply I can nest parentheses (Hope that doesn't bother
you.(And I always close with the requisite smiley (humm ten, not bad (would
have been nine if it weren't self-referential! (unless you count the smiley
I wonder how many other folks on this list have seen that movie. Do you
think it would help if I changed my handle to "TheCicilianFromTPB?"
But seriously folks ....
> > >Your last post to
> > > George Murphy had the tone of a teenager bragging to his friends about
> > > stupid his little sister is. George Murphy probably has some things
> > > (as we all do), but he is not stupid.
> > >
> > I never called him stupid, and if he looked so to you, I would suggest
> > cause to be his own obstinant rejection of the rather obvious
> > his argument.
> As a former U.S. President would have said, "Well ... there you go again."
> Whether or not you use the word "stupid" (I don't think you did),
> of, for example, obstinately rejecting the obvious have the tone I was
> referring to.
> A crackpot thinks all his own opinions are obvious truths and immediately
> labels anybody who disagrees as obstinate, blind, stupid, etc. To the
> you express yourself that way, you will appear to be a crackpot, even if
> are not.
Part of me (a significant part) wanted to correct you and justify me. And in
fact I wrote a bunch of obnoxious stuff. But some small still voice said
"ctrl-x!" Who'd have thought the Holy Spirit to be such a techie?
My only hope is your continued exercise of the 7 x 70 principle! Which by
the way, is embodied in a particularly beautiful identity:
Tamim (Hebrew, Perfect/Complete) = Tav (400) + Mem(40) + Yod(10) + Mem(40) =
490 = 7 x 70.
Do you think Jesus knew that? Does it relate to the Biblical use of the
> > BTW -- do you acknowledge that he never even attempted to defend my
> > attack on his fundamental argument?
> Fatal is in the eyes of the beholder; I think you were in part talking
> each other. Whether it is a legitimate exercise to extract mathematical
> patterns not just from the words of Scripture as they were originally
> (which many would already consider dubious on various theological
> but also from the arbitrary things humans have done to Scripture since
> (such as grouping of books or verse divisions), is a fair question. Your
> repeated loud assertion that this must be OK because you think you have
> a pattern does not settle the question.
I'm really sorry, (in the sense of experiencing personal sorrow) that I was
so loud. I feel like an old cliche - a bull in a china shop. I jumped in
here with both feet forward. And if you knew my physiology (I'm 5'7", size
12 shoe) you'd know what a foolish commotion that could cause!
And of course you are right, neither my loudness nor my assertion settles
the question. I would have it no other way. But to speak truth, I don't
really feel a need to *settle* the question - I just want to *discuss* it!
>The question is probably worth
> discussing in a graceful, rational, theologically informed way. I am not
> optimistic that that will happen in this case, based on the tone you have
> adopted so far and that still managed to surface several times in your
> attempt at contrition (which I should add is appreciated and was
> appropriately gracious in some places).
Well, I'm still optimistic, because for all my shortcomings, one thing I
know. "A soft answer turns away wrath." I don't want to continue arguing. I
want to talk!
> A followup message from Richard said:
> > Have you ever seen "The Princess Bride?"
> > Sometimes I feel like the Cicilian ... :)
> If you are referring to the character I think you are (it's been a long
> since I saw it), that is not a bad analogy. Not exactly a role model. So
> it "INCONCEIVABLE" to you that you might be mistaken about God placing
> hidden structure in Scripture? ;-)
Indeed, the Cicilian is no role model. He did, after all, lose, (fatally I
may say), in the "battle of wits, to the death!"
I don't want to do that. And I feel that despite your hard words to me, they
are meant well, as the good book says, "Faithful are the wounds of a
Thank you again for your criticism. Whether you know it or not, it is truly
helping me grow into the man God would have me to be.
En tou onoma tou kuriou hemon, Ihsou Xristou,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 00:15:59 EDT