John wrote: > You are a legalist, David. Thank you. Nothing wrong with being a legalist. God is a legalist too. Read the Torah and study why Jesus had to die for your sins.
John wrote: > Well meaning, of course. Thank you. John wrote: > As such, there is no way of convicting you of your > complicity apart from your willingness to stop with > the game and cast the beam from your eye. You misunderstand. I am not playing any game. David Miller wrote: >> I quoted you exactly as you wrote it John wrote: > I wrote: Knowing you are right in some esoteric way > is a fantasy of the first order. That is exactly how I quoted you John. Go back and look at the post. John wrote: > You wrote: "You claim we can't know anything" > You can't see the differen. Trying counting the words. I still see your statement as saying that we cannot know anything. The number of words don't matter. I was not quoting you with this sentence, nor was I misrepresenting you. I was communicating how your information comes over to me based upon my understanding of the words you have used. If you don't want to try and communicate on this, fine, but don't claim that I am playing some kind of game or that I am trying to make you look bad. John wrote: > You nowhere quote me correctly, David. Period. You proved that I did quote you correctly by repeating in this post what you wrote. That is exactly how I quoted you. Your statement here that I nowhere quote you correctly is a false statement. You are the one who needs to repent for making such false allegations. John wrote: > Where do you say that I did not mean what I wrote? Implicit in asking for your definition of words, and sharing how your message came across to me in a way that you find objectionable, is saying that whatever it is you are trying to say is not coming across. You are not communicating what you hope to communicate, whatever that is. John wrote: > Where do you suggest that we have different meanings > (implying that you already know my definitions). Such does not imply that I already know your definitions. If I did, I would not ask you for clarification. This is not some game. I just do not understand you. Rather than calling you nuts, I realize that you use words in some esoteric way that escapes me. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it is likely that I am not smart enough to understand you. John wrote: > Where do ask me to relieve apparent contradictions? I'm not going to back track to that post. I asked you to define your terms because you appear to come across contradictory. I assume that you do not mean to come across that way and I assume that you are intelligent. I tire of this and I am sure that others do too. I only post this hoping that you might not continue in your evil surmisings concerning me. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
