XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: shell-stamford@cox.net   
      
   "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   news:Crqok.19044$89.11438@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   > Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >> news:Pj2ok.15910$LG4.5775@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   >>> Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:AGNnk.17923$mh5.3945@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   >>>>> Chuck Stamford wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>> news:J3Enk.16745$xZ.12468@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...   
   >>>>>>> roymock@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It most certainly is.  And?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Is it not true Christ's brethren were commanded to love each   
   >>>>>>>>> other, even their enemies and do good to those who might   
   >>>>>>>>> despitefully use them?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I would have thought so, too.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Luke 12:51ff was given recently as the way His people should   
   >>>>>>>> expect to carry themselves in public.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> " ... Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No,   
   >>>>>>>> I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house   
   >>>>>>>> there will be five divided, three against two and two against   
   >>>>>>>> three. They will be divided, father against son and son against   
   >>>>>>>> father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother,   
   >>>>>>>> mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law   
   >>>>>>>> against mother-in-law."   (Luk 12:51-53).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I begged to differ.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Cheers.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Since Chuck does not like this...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There you go again, pretending to read minds.  Pretty presumptuous   
   >>>>>> of you.   
   >>>>> Then you do agreee with what this says and not with some WAG as to   
   >>>>> it's meaning.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you're asking what I think, don't tell me my choices.   
   >>>   
   >>> You only have three.   
   >>   
   >> When you learn the personal humility to say instead, "I see only   
   >> three", come back and we'll talk some more.   
   >   
   > I would have answered the question and shown it to be wrong.   
   > You just talk about it and snip the choices.   
      
   You express your opinions as if they were facts beyond the fact they're your   
   opinions.  That's nothing but pure arrogance, and I'm not going to waste my   
   time on that degree of arrogance.  Showing you wrong is easy.  Getting it   
   through to you that your thoughts do not demarcate reality for us all isn't.   
      
   If you can control yourself to behave in a reasonable fashion, we can have   
   an adult discussion.  If not, I'm not interested in your questions, or   
   anything else you can think up to say or ask.  Ball's in your court.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)