To: Mad Dawg; Judith Anne
#1369 Judith Anne:
"Extravagant language can be misunderstood; the more words iused, the greater the possibility of error. OTOH, If the writer wants to obfuscate a meaning, what better way than to bury it in wordiness?"
1,548 posted on
06/03/2008 3:00:21 PM PDT by
OLD REGGIE
(I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
To: OLD REGGIE
Let's not compare a digest of 1900 years of theological scholarship with bizarre and disjointed strings of gibberish,
NO MATTER
THE SIZE
OR
COLOR
1,550 posted on
06/03/2008 3:11:50 PM PDT by
Petronski
(Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
To: OLD REGGIE
Exactly. Now, a textbook, or an exposition, or a lengthy novel, or an encyclopedia or a CATECHISM would be different from a verbose, repetitive, off-tangent poster on an internet religion forum
To: OLD REGGIE
I guess my posts upset you so much you cannot respond to the arguments in them.
If you do not like the style of my posts, I suggest you not read them.
Until you get off your latest kick I might as well tell you I’m not going to be reading yours. Have another beer.
1,579 posted on
06/03/2008 4:00:46 PM PDT by
Mad Dawg
(Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson