I posted a thread...
I stated SPECIFICALLY to WHOM it was posted: those with ears to hear and eyes to see...
Thus, by virtue of opening the thread, one would have to assume that whoever did open it, felt it addressed to them...
It was responded to, however, not only by those to whom it was specifcally addressed... but also by those who either do not have such eyes and ears... and/or don't believe anyone does...
And, I might add... respond with slander AND libel... (but, of course, their intelligence allowed this)
And yet, I am accused of "cramming" something down folks' throat...
I ask YOU: what part of "don't open my threads if you don't want to read what I post because you don't/can't/won't agree with it" do you not understand? Teejay accused me of only responding to the threads which I start, which, although untrue, seems... safer, doesn't it?
If I put something in the refrigerator for another, and YOU open the refrigerator and although SEEING another's name, CHOOSE to take the item and eat it yourself... WHO IS TO BLAME? If YOU open YOUR mouth and take it in and EAT it... even though it was not FOR you... and you KNOW this because there was a label stating just who is WAS for... how can you accuse someone else of "cramming" ANYTHING down YOUR throat?
IF there is a post addressed to, say, all guys who include the word "bear" in their names (i.e., JoelBear, Dannybear, etc.), because the poster either has something to say... or something in common... with those he/she addressed...
and I, whose have no such suffix, no such commonality, and in truth really NO DESIRE TO HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID... yet I respond... who TRULY is the "looney"? Here I am, just assuming that everything written is for ME... even when it's address and greeting says it is NOT. Who... is "arrogant"?
There are ALL kinds of things which I don't believe or believe in. For example, I do not subscribe to atheism. I don't "do" numerology. I ain't into Tarot. So what? Should I enter the thread of a known atheist/numerologist/Tarot reader and do nothing more than malign that one for his/her beliefs? If I DO choose... or chance... to enter, shouldn't I be limited to addressing the argument, debating the beliefs and/or position stated... rather than attacking the poster? I mean, if I am as all "loving" as I want folks to think I am?
It amazes me: you don't agree. So be it. But... you cannot bring ANY claim to refute what I have shared here, other than YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT. So, instead, you attack me personally. Isn't that called a "straw man" or "ad hominem" or "red herring" or some other such "type" of false argument that many of you invoke when it is YOU who are being wrongly attacked?
Sigh! Earthling man... and his "perfect" reasoning. Go figure.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
BTW - This is not a "woman" issue - it is a human issue. It is the same old age old issue of how we decry people lying to us and misleading us, and then when someone speaks the truth, we "crucify" them... either techincally or literally. It is the issue of how we SAY we want to be treated such and so... but how we treat others totally denies that. It is the issue of how we SAY we are "good" and "loving" people... but our hearts prove otherwise. For it is not what [a man] does or does not do, but what comes OUT of [a man]... that defiles him. If the shoe fits...
My peace... toward you all... remains.