I was in too much of a hurry; I meant to say I do
disagree Lance because as I see it some choose to walk
in darkness; while others embrace the light and as
scripture says "the path of the righteous is like the
light of dawn it shines brighter till the full
day". It is possible to be walking in all the light one has
and
ATST not be in error. Noone alive today has the
whole loaf.
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.
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
|