(DouglasKC) Look, you're making the argument that it's okay to covet as long as your motivations are good. I don't agree with that any more than I agree that it's okay to steal as long as your motives are good.
(SD) Not at all. I am making the case that not all gambling for money is "coveting," hence sinful. Do you remember when you said it was, or do you wish to modify your definition now?
A case, incidentally, which Dave has been belaboring for two days.
(DouglasKC) You are flat out wrong Dave. The issue was about life insurance. My position is that life insurance isn't sinful because the person "betting" stands to gain absolutely nothing and thus isn't coveting anything, except perhaps a better life for his family after he's gone.
You redefined my position based on your own opinion, not mine.
(SD) Doug, I am disappointed in you. I expect Reggie to call me a liar no matter what, but I thought you would see. What was your definition of the "sin." Didn't I quote it from you verbatim?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now let's compare it with an exchange between Dave and me:
(SD) " . . . can you agree, as I gave an out earlier, that suffering helps to sanctify us?"
(Reg) NO! In some cases it may, in others, absolutely not.
(SD) Reggie corrects my statement again. Of course I meant that suffering may help to sanctify us, depending on our own attitude. Suffering turns some in to saints, and others into, ironically, insufferable people.
(Reg) Learn to say what you mean. Your "open ended" pronouncements leave too much for later "modification".
(SD) Learn to read what I say, instead of giving me the inquisition all the time.
GO BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
According to Dave we are supposed to know what he means. We cannot quote him exactly and take issue with his statement.
Now Dave has been chasing, and demanding apologies, for two days because DouglasKC and I have claimed he took Doug's statement out of context to advance his argument.
Are there different rules for different people?
Since I was speaking to Becky, this statement is fine on its face. I do believe suffering sanctifies she and me. Or any serious person of faith.
That you take "us" to mean that this is some blanket statement for all of mankind is not my fault. As in your sizzling analysis of my "misreading" of Jim's bigotry, you were obviously reading an "all of" where it was not written.
Two can play your stupid games.
Now Dave has been chasing, and demanding apologies, for two days because DouglasKC and I have claimed he took Doug's statement out of context to advance his argument.
That's right. Cause Doug and you can not admit that you slurred me. I have showed you his words, his definition. He, and then you, accused me of making up something he did not say.
Answer the question. Did he or did he not say that all gambling for money is wrong?
SD