As I said before -the emphasis should be on the 'correctness' of doc's theology. IF he is correct (which is the assumption he is most definately operating under!), then his descriptions are correct. Since that, as I mentioned, is the assumption he is operating under, then his intentions are certainly not hateful or malevolent. Remember this was done in private -it was not an attempt at a public rebuke.
As I've mentioned before, I will occasionally utilize a similar technique using similar words with the troubled youth I work closely with. In this example, I ~am~ correct. I've led a life of obeying the law, not out of fear, but out of the desire to do what's right. In this situation, when I tell a youth that if he continues down the path of crime and drugs that he's being a fool and just plain stupid, I'm intending to be blunt. I'm intending to give him a literary slap in the face in hopes of waking him up. My intentions are most certainly out of love and kindness. That I'm being 'mean' is not the issue. What is the issue is that I'm attempting to show the youth explicitly what he is doing that is wrong.
So, if doc's theology is incorrect, that still leaves his good intentions as he most certainly has strong convictions in his theology. He's not simiply trying to win a debate point. This stuff is of utmost seriousness to him. I would think you'd respect the passion he shows and the kindness (again 'tough love') he's employed to 'knock you to your senses'.
Correct, or incorrect, his intentions are the best although he employs a technique you may not care for. (The youths I work with typically don't 'like' the descriptions I utilize either, but in that case, they do know I am correct, and they respect my intentions as these kids are usually the one's I have the best relationship with.)
"So are you both willing to draw onto yourselves the prestigious mantles of "dorks", "idiots" and "demonically controlled", "Satanically screwed" fools?"
I'm assuming that there's a bit of a relationship between the two Dr's. I hardly see this issue as being one where the_doc read a post of Dr. Brian's and, without so much as corresponding with him before, hit him with that email in question. I'm assuming that there has been a good amount communication between the two prior to this email.
Now, if it was us who are wrong and are being rather obstinant about it, then yes, the descritions used would accurately describe our condintion.
We're 'big' people here. Why the inability to understand the_doc's motivation and intentions? You should here the insults and words I am called by some of these youths! And they intend malevolence! Yet, I am mature enough to simply 'laugh it off' (that bugs them the most!) and realize that the youth in question really doesn't 'know' my 3 year old daughter and hasn't really done all those nasty things to her. Imagine the look on my supervisor's face if I were actually to go and complain to him that I was seriously offended and bothered at the youth's comments. Come on, if the_doc's comments were so juvenile, why don't you rise above it. It seems to me that if his intentions were indeed ill, then it would bother him the most that you would ignore it. It seems to me that, if he intended malevolence, that bringing it public would cause him joy!
Sorry, the_doc is not that kind of person. His intentions were the best!
Jean
just ignore the naughty lass and spare him the rebuke - glad hes not raising my kids - he sounds like a demoncrat.
The road to hell is paved.....