|
You said 'No I don't disagree, Lance'. Therefore
some of that which you believe say is error. Correct?
This is, IMO, being made unnecessarily complex.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 26, 2006 10:21
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
No Lance I don't because the condemnation is that
some prefer darkness to light and refuse to come.
I believe some walk in complete and total
darkness and there is little or no fear of God in the land, yours
or mine.
THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!! You, Judy, see some
of it. Everybody on the planet sees some of it. Nobody, including you, has
all of it. Do you disagree?
You speak as though there were no "objective
Truth" Lance and to me it appears as though this is where
you live. Not so for me and others. We may
be the minority but then just because your opinion a majority
or
ecumenical one; this is hardly a recommendation - is it??
I disagree. DH has chosen The Mormon
religion. To insult his religion is akin to the "cartoon incident' re:
the Muslims.
If John Lennon were to have been my brother
then, I'd most assuredly receive that as an personal insult.
cd: Maybe to
John Calvin but not towards you-see the difference?If the truth
insults then that person needs to change not the truth. If I were to
say that John Lennon was a pig-that is acceptable as I am not making a
personal attack on you.But if I were to insult you by calling you
names then I have personally attacked you and would be in error to do
so Lance. If I were to say to DavH : Mormons are stupid I have not
attacked DavH but rather my attack was on the teaching of Mormonism.
In short-express your self but don't let it get
personal.
IFO took your, and Judy's, evaluation
of John Calvin to be nothing short of an insult. However, should you
'rule' on this matter thus eliminating your/my assessment to be off
limits then, we would have no ongoing dialogue.
By the way, wasn't there some kind of
mystery 'rule' about not responding to posts with the above
subject heading?
No-there isn't any "new
rule". This is the same rule Perry enforced. If I make the call that
someone has broken the Ad. Hom. rule- that protects others from
verbal assaults- then reply to that in private. If I did not enforce
this then the issue of that person wrongs will become part of
the debate and become unsolvable as others got involved.-this is for
you protection as well as others. The non-enforcing of some past
Moderators has lead to many good minds leaving this site.If these
attacks continue Lance it will only be a couple of people here and
how long can two /three people carry on the same
conversation?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 26, 2006
07:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
*********** To all list members-Moderator
Comment***************
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2/26/2006 4:13:42 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
*********** To all list members-Moderator
Comment***************
You spoke my question
"G"?????????
Moderator-This simply means that
the rules against insults and personal attacks are going to be
unforced by me-others are under my protection and will get fair
treatment-I owe that to God not to those who will not keep their
agreement and abide by the rules.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 25, 2006
18:07
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
*********** To all list members-Moderator
Comment***************
ftr, what does this mean?
I plan on enforcing the rules of protection on TT
against those who love
ch[ao]s
|
