Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg; OLD REGGIE; John Leland 1789; 1000 silverlings; Quix; Marysecretary; DungeonMaster
But it is certain that some Protestants here post not to discuss but to upset and "drive nuts".

If you are not capable of defending the faith of Christ risen without being "driven nuts," then the fault, Horatio, lies with your argument.

God-given understanding of His word and will by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit brings clarity, peace, strength and joy.

2,686 posted on 06/05/2008 1:14:39 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2664 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Eckleburg
If you are not capable of defending the faith of Christ risen without being "driven nuts," then the fault, Horatio, lies with your argument.

It's not at all about that ability, it's a statement of the motives of those who raise arguments for the purpose of "driving them nuts." Whether it meets with success or failure, and in either event, the attempt is pathetic.

2,695 posted on 06/05/2008 1:20:56 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2686 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
If you are not capable of defending the faith of Christ risen without being "driven nuts," then the fault, Horatio, lies with your argument.

So God struck Bar-Jesus blind because Paul had a bad argument?

As I said, you never disappoint.

2,697 posted on 06/05/2008 1:22:18 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2686 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Mad Dawg

Well put.

However, as the likely target of that broadside of MD’s,

I’ll state the realities within me from my perspective.

1. I always post as a component of an interaction, preferably a dialogue of some substance AND some emotional intensity. I’m not real fond of 95% asleep shallow exchanges, . . . at least I’m not—MOST of the time.

2. I have no goal of upsetting or driving nuts per se. I suppose it depends on one’s definitions.

3. I do frequently have as a 2nd or 3rd or some such goal . . . to say things in a way that provokes though—hopefully deeper than usual thought—that usually means that one needs to hook some emotional connection with the content in order to trigger deeper and longer than usual thought. I’m fairly brazenly given to persistently writing with that in mind. Actually, it’s probably virtually an automatic habit, now.

4. I do frequently post similarly because emotional intensity with the content tends to make a comment more memorable—afford, in a sense, an ‘easier’ time for Holy Spirit to make fruit frm the comment because there’s a longer half-life to it.

5. There is a part of me at times . . . that I confess does enjoy responding to an emotionally intense or outrageous RC comment/statement in a way that is startling, novel, unexpected . . . maybe even tweaky intellectually. That’s much more fun than saying something that would most likely foster the wonderful fruit of a near dead yawn. If I’m going to bother commenting, I’d rather not comment in a way that puts folks deeper into a comotose state.

LOL.


2,725 posted on 06/05/2008 1:42:22 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2686 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson