|
Walking in as much light as one has been given so far
is not the same as what you have been promoting
Nor is it saying that ppl who have chosen darkness are
walking in light. It has to be one or the other
because there is no concord between Christ and
Belial.
Exactly!
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
|
