|
Exactly!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 27, 2006 07:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
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
|
