|
Post by Smithee on Dec 29, 2012 10:10:42 GMT 10
It is true the reference to Gnostic began with the GM of FL, however, my comment was to Torence's use of or reference to Gnostic Christians. ... If you need clarification of the GM use of Gnostic, then ask him. ... I can not speak for him, nor can I read his mind. It is enough that we can read his words. It was you who asked for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Dec 29, 2012 13:02:33 GMT 10
I write concise statements with specific points. Yeah right. Like this gem. My use of the above Brotherhood quote was to clarify a partially stated and miss-used quote to allude to something different; of which I'm not certain what that was. However, it wasn't in relation to a belief in God as the correct is quote is.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Dec 29, 2012 13:03:55 GMT 10
It was you who asked for clarification. Here is one opinion. What Is a Gnostic? by Stephan A. Hoeller Read more at gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 22:23:19 GMT 10
You don't have to be. I write concise statements with specific points. That is for readers to decide: It has not been my experience of your posts. So why don't you let the readers decide. I don't think the readers need your editorializing of my comments with your 'suggested" & "supposed' concussions of which I didn't state are imply.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 22:34:58 GMT 10
I did not intend or imply any sarcasm. If you took my comment as such, then I apologize. However, continued badgering by the Admin is certainly noted. This is not good for the forum, nor is it constructive to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 22:53:11 GMT 10
It is true the reference to Gnostic began with the GM of FL, however, my comment was to Torence's use of or reference to Gnostic Christians. ... If you need clarification of the GM use of Gnostic, then ask him. ... I can not speak for him, nor can I read his mind. It is enough that we can read his words. It was you who asked for clarification.No I didn't. ... If you refer to post #19, you will see that I asked tamrin to clarify the particular Gnostics HE was referring to. ... Tamrin sidestep the answer in his comment about the Fl GM edit. And, since it has been stated above that I need to quote the specific relevant post/comment for clarity, it is as follows. Likewise, non-Christian Gnostics who believe in a supreme being are acceptable. You have deliberately miss-quoted my post and taken my comment of context by removing part of the post. The above quoted comment was specifically about Torance's post where he was indicating Gnostics were Christian or was making his argument using Gnostic Christian as the basics. Therefore, my statement stands ... not all Gnostics are Christian and as furthermore ... not all Gnostic even believe in a God. Gnostic itself is not a religion, it is an adjective meaning 'learned'. So I suggest that you clarify what Gnostic you are referring too.[/color][/quote] Comment in red, edited for color & boldness.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 22:56:55 GMT 10
I write concise statements with specific points. Yeah right. Like this gem. My use of the above Brotherhood quote was to clarify a partially stated and miss-used quote to allude to something different; of which I'm not certain what that was. However, it wasn't in relation to a belief in God as the correct is quote is. So what part of the comment you don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 30, 2012 7:41:48 GMT 10
That is for readers to decide: It has not been my experience of your posts. So why don't you let the readers decide. I don't think the readers need your editorializing of my comments with your 'suggested" & "supposed' concussions of which I didn't state are imply.The readers WILL decide whether or not you "write concise statements with specific points." I am not stopping them.
|
|
|
Post by Solomon on Dec 30, 2012 7:46:33 GMT 10
I did not intend or imply any sarcasm. If you took my comment as such, then I apologize. However, continued badgering by the Admin is certainly noted. This is not good for the forum, nor is it constructive to the thread.When I need to put I my Admin hat and post with the authority of that role, I do so as "Solomon." Previously I have not done so on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 30, 2012 7:55:06 GMT 10
It is enough that we can read his words. It was you who asked for clarification. No I didn't. ... If you refer to post #19, you will see that I asked tamrin to clarify the particular Gnostics HE was referring to. ... Tamrin sidestep the answer in his comment about the Fl GM edit. [/size][/quote] The topic of the thread is the "Florida Grand Master's Decision No. 3" In that decision he did not define the particular Gnostics to which HE was referring. That is why I "sidestepped" your question. Without qualification, the GM's decision encompasses ALL Gnostics.
|
|