On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 9:13:39 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 29/07/2017 14:02, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:50:13 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 28/07/2017 23:41, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> Anyone can use profanity, Leigh. Anyone can be vulgar and
> >> Anyone can and should use profanity.
> >>
> >>> cruel and hateful and mean. You just need to open your mouth
> >>> and out it spews, pick a target and attack.
> >> Oh and I was targeting who exactly? Sorry but playing the victim just
> >> doesn't wash mate.
> >
> > My comment was toward an arbitrary target, meaning it's easy to be
> > vulgar and cruel and hateful and mean ... a person need only look
> > around them in any direction, pick out their target, and then go
> > forth spewing such filth at them. And to pick another target and
> > do the same. It requires no constraint to spew venom and hate.
> > It actually is a full embracing of the filth that exists in our
> > sinful flesh, to grab hold of those evil natural tendencies in our
> > sinful flesh, and then just run with them.
>
> I repeat my question: who was I targeting exactly with my profanity?
It is self-evident. You took time and effort to direct your focus on
the steps necessary to approach this world stage of Usenet, to then
type out letter-by-letter, word-by-word, your intended message. It
wasn't an accidental brush across the keyboard where you mistyped the
word "sit" or "duck" ... but it was deliberate.
Who were you targeting? Everybody. You were broadcasting, Leigh. And
you were doing it for no reason other than to just to spew what's all
welled up inside your heart.
> Playing the victim is egregious mate.
(1) I am not playing a victim here. My point is in reply to your
actions.
(2) I saw a skit one time containing a teacher in a class who asked the
student what they thought of something, and the student replied that he
thought it was "egregious." The teacher didn't know what that word meant
and went and looked it up. The teacher made a remark about the negative
connotations of the word egregious, to which the student corrected the
person and said that the word egregious had changed meaning over time.
That it wasn't always used in a negative connotation, but that originally
it meant "remarkable" or "extraordinary":
https://books.google.com/books?id=z3kKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q=egregious&f=false
-----
It's interesting how the things of man change over time. The same
is not true of the things of God, because what God has laid down is
foundational and permanent.
I ask you to investigate this, Leigh. You'll find that there are a
great many things we've all been taught in this world which are just
not true, helpful, or in any way uplifting toward right paths of life.
You'll come to find that Jesus has given us the right path of life,
and it is manifold and expressive in and through the redeemed us (as
by the born again, forgiven-of-sin, nature), for we are woven in to
His creation purposefully. But sin, being the enemy, prevents us
from contributing rightly to that creation because the things which
well up in our fallen-in-sin hearts are naturally harmful.
What Jesus offers us is full restoration, and a real life purpose
both here in this world, and in the age to come after we leave
this world.