|
The way I see it Lance, you and those you follow have
been making your own saints. How do you know who is
accepted and who is rejected before Jesus actually
separates the sheep from the goats? Neither Luther nor
Calvin are saints according to the RCC (which you also
defend). The way God tells us we can recognize someone
who represents God is that he not only is able to
separate the precious from the vile; he also speaks the oracles
of God which you claim noone is able to
comprehend so I guess you and God part company on this issue
which
is one of many. I have not ever noted you holding
scripture in great regard; you seldom if ever quote any of it so I
am left wondering about the basis of your discernment
and how you would know what is "truly truthful"
'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
|
