Replies

Yeah. Like the part where he compares Calvin to Luther:" Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he reasons on system; he has little humour; instead of striking with a cudgel he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher's authority, not by a demagogue's calling of names." If you read the paragraph before this, the demagogue he's referring to is Luther.

Actually, that quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I placed it there because I liked the fact that it demonstrated how even Calvin's enemies hold him in respectful regard. It's hardly my fault if the Roman Catholics abuse Luther with disrespect; I actually think Luther was a very good theologian, if not as systematic as Calvin... but I can hardly control what nasty things the Roman Catholics say about him, can I?! Sheesh!!

"Actually, that quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia."

You are quite loose with your writing, aren't you? Yes, you placed the commendation "-The Catholic Encyclopedia" at the end of the final paragraph, but there is no valid way of knowing exactly what appears above is from that work. Quotations are properly shown in quotation marks (that's where these marks derive their name, btw). And references to quotations are placed so that the reader knows what quote is referenced to what source. You simply place paragraphs in normal and highlighted text. There are quotation marks around certain words, but that just appears to be another way of highlighting text, along with the bold. No one visiting your home page could reasonably ascertain that what I quoted was from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"...I actually think Luther was a very good theologian..."

Oh? I see nothing on your page to indicate that. You say you "quote" the Catholic Encyclopedia yet make no indication that you disagree with their assessment. The logical inference is that you agree with their statement. Otherwise, why would you have quoted it?

No, I don't accept your explanation. You've been too obtuse throughout this entire thread. You have no validity with me at all.

You can call us anti-Paul FReepers if you wish, but I DID come to this thread with an open mind. I lurked for quite some time reading your posts and others. It was your invitation to another poster to visit the links you provided. I took you up on that and found a page with links to nothing but leftist blogs. It was then I made my first post to you, #148. You said it was an attack. Well, yes it was. But it came only after giving you the benefit of the doubt until you exposed yourself. That, YOU are responsible for, sir.

You're happy you've "doubled" your ping list. Well, good for you. I'm sure they're mostly libertarians such as yourself. In other words, you've been preaching to the choir. And yes, there are many conservative FReepers who will not join you list nor Ron Paul's campaign. And THAT is what will keep him from being successful. I've already been informed that Ron Paul doesn't need me. Well, the message is out for all conservative FReepers to see, and I will be spreading it widely. Ron Paul doesn't need me, and he doesn't need any other conservatives. If you think that will get him the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency, you are truly living in a parallel universe.