RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:10:44 -0700

Title: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you

Lance, Just when we are getting down to specifics you want us to abandon the conversation? Please don’t encourage that. Izzy

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you

 

Iz:This conversation is beyond saving. Why not assume that Jonathan is wrong and move on to something else?

----- Original Message -----

Sent: August 31, 2004 11:11

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you

 

Izzy in blue:

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you

 

Izzy,

I have not been involved in name calling.  Please identify where I have. Jonathan I am not going to go back over all the former posts to nit-pick.  Perhaps I am confusing you with Lance. If so I apologize.  I have exposed what I see your attitude as being: holier than thou.  Read your own posts again.  They drip with sarcasm and place you in a position above me.  I take this as name-calling. You are assuming the worst of me instead of taking my words as face value. If you knew my heart you would know that there was not one shred of sarcasm in what I wrote.  But you assume there is.  Why is that? I was imploring you to understand and trying to find common ground for agreement. I have not asked you to read several books in this thread.  I did mention that several (read hundreds) are available to DaveH. You have often responded by telling people who try to discuss issues to go read tomes of material.  You often assume that because there are “many books” supporting a viewpoint that this implies validity to your argument.  There are many books about Satanism and the occult. What does that prove? I have asked you to go to the archive and read up on how this has already been discussed.  Why is this offensive to you?  You have refused to read links provided before.  Should I interpret it as laziness?  Why do you want the most for the least? Pardon me for wanting to discuss it with you rather than review old discussions you have had with others. And when you provide links to lengthy websites my eyes glaze over.  If I asked you to read tomes of Conservative literature, would you?  Again you assume that I am “lazy” instead of assuming the best of me, or at least giving me the benefit of a doubt.

Your post below talks about how it is immoral to give false witness.  This very day you circulate an email that is a blatant lie.  You are made aware of this.  You say, oh well I was tired.  There is no apology to the group.  Please let me spell it out “I AM VERY SORRY!! I APOLOGIZE VERY SINCERELY.”  We are left with the impression that you could care less if you lie about your 'enemy'.  Do you really think 'it is moral to lie'?  Do you really think that I intentionally composed and circulated a lie? A person walking in love would assume (correctly) that I was foolishly taken in by yet another urban legend, and at midnight was too sleepy to even think of that possiblility. Your behaviour shows otherwise.

I agree with the definition of 'moral' that you provided.  Thank you for saying so!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!  I pointed out that you did not define moralism but rather just the root.  You ignored this. I did not realize that I ignored that; I thought I addressed it, but you considered it sarcasm and holier than thou.  How can you think that MORALISM is a different word than the practice of doing what is MORAL?  

ism
suff.

  1. Action; process; practice: terrorism.
  2. Characteristic behavior or quality: heroism.
  3.  
    1. State; condition; quality: pauperism.
    2. State or condition resulting from an excess of something specified: strychninism.
  1. Distinctive or characteristic trait: Latinism.
  2.  
    1. Doctrine; theory; system of principles: pacifism.
    2. An attitude of prejudice against a given group: racism.

I pointed out that you have added to this definition by placing it in the context of God.  I pointed out that God is missing from the actual definition.  In other words your definition proved what I was saying: God is absent from morals.  There are not two categories of morals, God-centered and secular-based.  They are all secular based.  In Nazi Germany it was moral (i.e. it was not against their conscience and was considered good behaviour) to exterminate the Jews. Perhaps my last post will help you understand my viewpoint: that morality is ONLY determined by God’s opinion—not man’s.  Take your definition of moral again (I will include your patronizing comments):  They are not patronizing—they are letting you know that you are assuming I am the ignorant one, when I am only going by the standard English definition, Jonathan.

 

Perhaps you know better what the word “moral” means than anyone else who speaks English. Poor ignorant me, I just agree with the dictionary which states the following:

mor·al Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Now please show me in this definition where God is.  God is completely absent.  Christianity is completely absent.  It is a completely secular definition. 

Thank you for the invitation.  I will be happy to do that.  Take the Dictionary definition above.  (highlighted in red for you.)  Now, where do you see God’s absence from what is good, correct in character and behavior, doing what is right and virtuous, and having a good conscience according to God’s standards?  Do you not see Jesus in that?  If not, I am truly perplexed.  

 

Please do not discourage me by coming back with insulting comments or assumptions of evil on my part.  Please just address the statements I made and tell me where you think I am in error.  That would be loving me.  I am trying to love you by understanding you.  If this is too much trouble for you, just say so, but don’t just get mad and go away, please.  Izzy

Jonathan

 

 

From: ShieldsFamily
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] from O'Reilley to you
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:30:44 -0700

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan,  Okay, at least here you are discussing instead of name calling or telling me to go read several books before you will talk.  It seems that you believe in two kinds of morals (1) those that are God-based and (2) those that are secular-based.  Do I have this right so far?  Need I explain that I only believe in God-based morals.  There are no other morals.  All true morals are obedience to God’s Law, whether or not the person realizes that or not.  If someone thinks it is moral to lie, then he is not a moral person.  Lying is not moral no matter how much you believe it is. Why? Because God’s word says Do not bear false witness.  Do you see my standard here? I do not believe there is a secular morality.  When I speak of morality I am ONLY referring to God-based right vs wrong.  A Satanist cannot be “moral”, but he can do “moral” acts, such as helping an old man across the street. Can you understand my viewpoint at all? Izzy


Jonathan, Let’s go back to square one in my post below. (1) Do you, or do you not, agree with the Dictionary’s definition of “moral”? (2) Next, instead of name-calling, how about choosing one statement and telling me exactly why you disagree with it. Tell me exactly and precisely what statement I made below disturbs you. This is called intelligent discussion. It is also called humility. Try it; you might like it. Izzy

 

Jonathan Hughes
Supervisor of Application Support
Kingsway Financial
905-629-7888 x. 2471

This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above.

Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.

Reply via email to