Aineo wrote:twohumble wrote:Tuppence has an earnest desire for the Lord, but her acceptence of authority is misplaced badly when Setterfield is invoked as her primary source of information. He was off on so many things, and a self admitted amatuer scientist at best. His science was augmented by conversations with God, or so he says....I think more likely he was mislead by the spirits who's intent is to mislead.
I do not have a problem with discussion based on truth; but I have a real problem when personalities are brought into any discussion for any reason. If you want to question any man's qualifications based on his education that is fine; but your comments are rude, based on your prejudices, and are totally uncalled for a Christian on a Christian board.
Here for your review is our posting rule #7:
No “I’m a better person than you are”. Our members run the gambit from people of faith to atheists. Keep this is mind and refrain from lifting yourself above all others in knowledge, value, orthodoxy, etc. For our Christian members remember there are many faiths but only One Lord, your denomination, doctrine, or understanding of the Bible may not be universally accepted by others.
I would also recommend a review of 1 Corinthians 13
Aineo
I heartfeltly apologize for any perceived rudeness. I meant absolutly no disrespect for Tuppence as a Christian or a person. I think she is earnest in her Christianity, as I stated. I am not at all sure how you think I was rude toward her.
Setterfield, on the other hand, I did dispariage. His work is not at all credible from a standpoint of science, and my comments about his conversations were also in all earnestness.
I believe Satan misleads even those with good intentions, as I believe Setterfield may have. Unfortunately, Setterfields stated method of deriving his theories smacks much more of deception than of truth to me. I place this deception in the realm of spiritual warefare, and not intended by Setterfield himself.
Again, I am not sure how you interpreted my post, but nothing "personal" in nature, and no attack on Tuppence was intended at all.
What did you think I meant?