: information about quoted authors on this
: board. All part of the "search for
: understanding"!
No, it doesn't. Your response to the quoted text was not your original intent. You're rationalising now.
: Sounds Nihil Obstatish..
Sounds desperate ... ish.
: The Church has seen fit to strongly alert
: the Faithful to the errors and pitfalls of
: New Age thinking. One of the features of
: this danger is that it "creeps in"
: often appearing innocuous and even with the
: appearance of SOME Truth. The error and
: dangers of the ideas are not always
: immediately clear. It can be very easy and
: attractive to go down this path which offers
: an alternate Gospel more in tune with the
: prevailing "feel good"
: culture" and egotism.
You haven't established anything like a 'path'. You haven't even got out the gate.
: Thus I don't
: apologise for being hyper vigilant the
: moment the scent of this innocuous thinking
: arises and erecting a large CAUTION sign
: where that could be helpful.
No apologies asked for, just as I don't apologise for being 'hyper vigilant' about jumping to unjustified conclusions based on flimsy pretexts.
: Hopefully their broader consideration will
: see the good will intended and the important
: takeaway message in spite of your forensic
: and pedantic prosecution of me for daring to
: delve a little more into BAIRD T SPALDING.
When you condemn someone in the terms you have in this string you might get a response from me. I won't apologise for that!
: I could say you almost seem "eager to
: defend" him..but that would be a MATTER
: OF OPINION!
Who? Alex or Spalding?
I make no 'defence' of Spalding. I don't have much of an opinion about him one way or the other. I don't seek to 'defend' Alex either. He can look after himself. I do seek to question when I think unreasonable conclusions are being made.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »