Originally posted by FMFor understand logic differently and comprehend words differently, here is the Op's statement again
Maybe we read different OPs.
please comment on its categories [if any] and meaning to you
you will of course notice that while it does call for a personal perspective it also calls for an objective one. You will notice the call for information and the use of and/or which logically denotes a perspective that is not exclusively personal as you seem to be suggesting from your insistence that you have actually read and understood the Op's original text. It pains me to have to point out the finer details to you but logic doesn't seem to be your strong point.
2 edits
-Removed-This thread is about sin. Its not about me, its not about you, its about sin. If you have any comments to make about sin and its meaning to you then let them be heard. Otherwise start your own thread about you. If you like ill start one for you where you can discuss all the things that are important to you. We shall start with yourself? How about that?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCould your attacks on divegeester about having "the same moral disposition as lynch mob murderers" ~ elements of which you were forced to retract although the retraction may have been insincere ~ be construed as "sin" according to the six or seven "sins" that Grampy Bobby laid out on page 1?
This thread is about sin. Its not about me, its not about you, its about sin. If you have any comments to make about sin and its meaning to you then let them be heard. Otherwise start your own thread about you.
Originally posted by FMFI am sorry but this thread is not about me nor divesgeester its about sin. If you want to discuss sin without attempting to make your remarks personal then please do so. I am not interested in discussing my personal perspective of what constitutes sin in relation to divesgeester or anyone else for that matter. I am prepared to discuss sin objectively. Perhaps you could start your own, 'sin in relation to comments made about divesgeester thread'. Perhaps you and divesgeester would be interested in discussing that. I am interested in discussing sin from an objective perspective. Please dont make me repeat this again. All further attempts to make the discussion personal will be ignored.
Could your attacks on divegeester about having "the same moral disposition as lynch mob murderers" ~ elements of which you were forced to retract although the retraction may have been insincere ~ be construed as "sin" according to the six or seven "sins" that Grampy Bobby laid out on page 1?
1 edit
-Removed-Ok, third time trying to help you appreciate what the thread is about. This thread is about sin. So far I cannot recall a single reference you have made in relation to the Op's original text. If you are not interested in sin then perhaps this is not the thread for you? You do seem interested to talk about you though. Why not start your own 'all about me and my perspective thread'?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it's no secret that Grampy Bobby's OP and first post thereafter have been posted in the aftermath of some forum strife that you have been at the centre of. Could your attacks on divegeester be construed as "sin" if we look at Proverbs 6:19 as cited by Grampy Bobby on the first page of this thread?
I am sorry but this thread is not about me nor divesgeester its about sin. If you want to discuss sin without attempting to make your remarks personal then please do so. I am not interested in discussing my personal perspective of what constitutes sin in relation to divesgeester or anyone else for that matter. I am prepared to discuss sin objective ...[text shortened]... ake me repeat this again. All further attempts to make the discussion personal will be ignored.
Originally posted by FMF
I think it's no secret that Grampy Bobby's OP and first post thereafter have been posted in the aftermath of some forum strife that you have been at the centre of. Could your attacks on divegeester be construed as [b]"sin" if we look at Proverbs 6:19 as cited by Grampy Bobby on the first page of this thread?[/b]