Posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2010, at 6:21:22 [reposted on July 4, 2010, at 10:17:35 | original URL]
In reply to Lou's reply- corrected link and date of your post, posted by Lou Pilder on July 3, 2010, at 6:15:14
> > > > The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or will ever cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal life....is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior.
> > >
> > > He was referring to:
> > >
> > > > my Maker ... the God that [I give] service and worship to ... the God that the Christian Bible refers to
> > >
> > > so I considered it analogous to:
> > >
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > which I consider OK:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7889.html
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > In your post here, you are allowing an antisemitic statement to stand on the basis that you drafted a rule that allows a antisemitic statement to stand if {see the rationale above}.
> > Now your rationale above gives something about the God that the poster gives service and worship to and the God that the Christian bible refers to. I am guessing that then you are wanting to mean that the poster is saying that he believes what is in the statement in question or that he believes what he thinks that bible says about what is in question here. You then state that that is analogous and OK.
> > But OK IMO coud mean that you are permiting the antisemitic statement to be posted here, and that the statement in and of itself, as to it being supportive or not, is not what is in question, for OK and supportive in my understanding need not be equivalent. I am asking for you to post here as to if you are wanting to mean or not that th stamtent in question, in and of itself is or is not supportive so as to eliminate any ambiguity that IMO could have the potential for some others to have here since you write that support takes precedence and that statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down are antisemitic statements.
> > Now the issue has been as is now the use of the word {only} which you write here t preclude others. Here is a link that you say would not be allowable here. The link brings up a post but then I would like or you to read your own post in that thread statement about how the use of the word [only} is to be taken elsewhere.
> > Here are some links to threads that I would like for you to look at your own posts there concerning that if the poster uses {only}, what you say about that
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20080809/msgs/918556.html
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/440617.html
> > Thedn here is a link to links for this discussion ongoing..
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/bable/admin/20100321/msgs951879.html
> > Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The date of your post in the first link above is 9/27/09
> The corrected link is:
> Lou
> http//www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.htmlthe correction to the correction to the link to the link to the admin discussion
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/951879.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:943057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/953236.html