Re: [TruthTalk] Mary/Scripture/transubstantiation/interpretation

Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:00:09 -0700

Of course you wouldn't call it that, Judy. You and I rarely engage one another or other TT participants in genuine 'conversation'. We tend toward pronouncements (mine of course, being correct while yours...).
 
But seriously folks..Judy, I honestly don't know what name to give to what you do. It isn't 'conversation'. Your responses rarely reflects an understanding of what someone has said. "Who are you to say such a thing, Lance?' Nobody, Judy. I can't write but, I can observe. David 'covers your back.' Iz and Kevin tend toward 'you go girl' responses. John, Bill, Debbie and Caroline have taken several 'runs' at engaging you, all of which have been unsuccessful. 
 
I have every confidence that you won't respond in an understandable fasion but..here goes:
 
ASSUMING THAT I'VE NOT MISCHARACTERIZED YOU OR THEM THEN, WHY IS IT THAT ALMOST ALL (I THINK ALL BUT, I'M BEING KIND) OF THESE ENGAGEMENTS END IN SUCH A WAY AS THIS?
Sent: July 09, 2005 09:31
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mary/Scripture/transubstantiation/interpretation

Don't know that I would call it that Lance,
Conversation is a two way street - I would say there have been a "lot of words" going on.  jt
 
 
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 06:41:34 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The virginal conception/inspiration of Scripture-higher vs lower
 
The 'real' presence/the real 'absence/the Word of God/the words of persons
 
There is a 'hint' of conversation going on. Take note. D & G have exchanged a word or two warranting attention. They think. They employ an open structured model.
 
Thanks to (two) both.........poets
 

Reply via email to