YP,
Why do you assume I was talking to you? Do you think I am following you around to pick fights with you or something?
You don’t want to discuss it, then don't. Period. I don’t need you or anybody to engage in the discussion. It is there for whoever is interested. If no one is interest, it will die. I think it is worthy. If no one agrees, then it dies. I actually will not get my feelings hurt.
It is not there for whoever wants to make personal remarks. I can accept that you believe it. I was actually responding to something other than your post. I was not talking to you.
Here we are in a thread on "ground of locality and generality" and when I see words in posts that start talking about what makes a denomination "wrong" and therefore problematic relative to the "ground of locality" then it is a worthy topic. I have brought this up before. Both here and the other place. It is a viable issue.
But whatever way you choose, quit your incessant snipping at my person. Stick to the topics or skip the topics.
It honestly seems that certain topics annoy you and you would rather make personal attacks. I have generally agreed with your positions. I probably do not agree with anyone 100%. (That is probably a safe thing to say for everyone here.) But it seems that if I say something that is contrary to something you have said, you don’t engage the subject, you engage me.
Ohio: I may have to go back and stick to what I said in that private note back on the other forum. I think you know the one I am referring to. This is just too much.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
|