|
'Personalizing'? You may wish to employ another
term in order to make your point, Judy. As there is an element of the author
even in scripture so there is an element of one's self in everything one
writes/speaks. Both you and Dean have, IMO, taken to slandering many of the
great saints of church history. Neither of you sees it that way. OK. I attempt
to discern, from the posts of each on TT, that which is simply an opinion, even
when 'supported' with scripture, and that which is truly truthful. We all do
that. It's just that a contingent exists on TT that sees itself as
having been promised something more than that. That's not
OK.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 27, 2006 08:04
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Truth or the
Opinions of Men
For me Lance, exactly means exactly and truth means
truth; no yours or mine about it.
Personalizing everything as you do leads to gross
deception.
May 'exactly' and your 'exactly' may not convey
the same meaning, Judy. This is, after all, what TT is about, is it not? My
'exactly' is, of course, God's 'exactly'. Once that is understood we can
move on.
Has Canada had a tsnuami? Is this a new
Lance or what?
Exactly!
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
|
