Mucho joko's ... nyuk, nyuk: Response

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >Dave responds:
> >Although I don't use this type of language, it takes a whole lot more
> >than just a slip of a word that accidently got by a Christian man,
> >namely Tyler, to offend me or insult me. I can't let every wind of
> >"doctrine" blow me here and there. This is what "insults" and "offenses"
> >are...they cause us to be blown here and there.
>
> I hardly think that being insulted or offended by the posting of a joke or
> jest that is unchristian in nature would constitute being "blown about" and
> that your use of that scripture  to apply it to the sisters remark would be
> a case of twisting and wrestling of scripture on your part, (AS it was
> certainly NOT doctrine that was being discussed.)
>
    I'm in agreement w/Sis. Lynna.  I've asked Bro. Tyler (privately) to

be more judicious about some of the jokes he's posted in the past.  So,
let's not act like this was some one-off occurrence.  If I read all the
posts on this accurately, I believe people stated their objections and
asked him to be careful.  Despite the deliberate mis-reading of some
words, I don't think anyone questioned his salvation.

    Personally, I'd rather read one of Sis. Lynna's patented "90 verse"
scripture citations :-)  than one crude joke.

    I have a question:

1) How about a new rule? How about one doesn't post it if one hasn't
read it.  (just wrote it that way to keep it impersonal)

Steven