Chime, chime. You are remiss.
When it comes to spiritual matters, we only have temporal reality to give us some
inkling of the unseen spiritual reality. In this state, it helps us to open our eyes of
faith and see that which is otherwise invisible, by reading this kind of story, and by
then going back to Scripture and reading it again with the added faculty of a
new sense of vision that we have acquired; as Our Lord says, "Let those with
eyes to see, see."
A very clear statement of how the Protestants proceed. Do you rely on the teachings of the Church at all?
You have hurled an unsubstantiated accusation, that I am "remiss," apparently
that I proceed like Protestants (I can't be sure because your incomplete sentence
has no subject), and the indirect insinuation that I do not rely on the teachings of
the Church. Are you having fun, or are you just miserable in general all the time?
Chime, chime. You are remiss...
A very clear statement of how the Protestants proceed.
That's not a sentence.
Do you rely on the teachings of the Church at all?
Do you have something substantive to contribute, or are you smug with your
satisfaction of hurling ungrammatical and unsubstantiated epithets?
Notice:
I am inviting substantive contributions, not
ad hominem accusations.
That's not a sentence.
So what? I can provide examples, but I'm not going to now, of well respected writers who put in such shortened declarations to add punch to their writing.
It's not a "declaration" if it's not a sentence. It's just a fragment that could mean
all kinds of things, depending on how the sentence is completed. You are
apparently attempting to change the subject by leaving out the subject, in other
words.
In any case this is an internet forum, not an invitation to dinner with royalty.
Fowler gives many examples of "verbless or otherwise incomplete sentences" and comments that they are "stylistically acceptable in context".
This is not a thread about writing styles, in case you forgot to notice -- unless you
would like to discuss the writing style of the nun whose dream is described in the
OP. I challenge you to find any such fragment in that story.
First, you have made ambiguous charges against what I have written, and then you're contemplating your own navel -- oh, while you accuse me of having
"gnostic trances." Are you Jєωιѕн??
So, if I were to add a verb would you smugly deign to deal with the allegation?
The verb wasn't the major problem. There was no identifiable subject, which is a
consequence of the verb missing, therefore, the effect of the missing verb is that
the would-be sentence has a vast number of meanings, some of which could be
contradictory to others. This is the kind of problem that Vatican II introduced by its
ambiguous language. Are you a fan of Vatican II-speak?
The linked article has none of that. It is written in a very standard, clear, and
lucid style, but perhaps that isn't exciting enough for you?
Maybe that's why you didn't bother to read it before you came on here criticizing
my comments and my attempt to briefly summarize the story, and to offer some
constructive points to ponder over the usefulness of the linked story itself.
If you don't like the message, why then obsess with attacking the messenger?
I thought from your comments that you rather abhorred "substantiated" arguments.
Did you even bother to notice that the linked story has plenty of footnotes?
Maybe it would be a good idea to read what is posted instead of reading only
the most recent post and from that point leaping to conclusions about what the
poster intended after having divorced your thinking from the subject at hand?
Maybe I just misunderstand you. Are your saying that the proper way to apprehend truth is to enter into some sort of gnostic trance and then take that experience to use when you are doing your own interpretation of the Bible?
I'm sorry, I have no idea where you got that. You must have me confused with
another member.
I do not so think now, nor have I ever in my life thought, that a gnostic trance is
a means by which anyone can know truth. And I don't plan on adopting that
method in the future. And no, I am not a fan of Medjugorje (where they do that
kind of thing).
I was talking about the linked story.
What are you talking about? --certainly not the linked story!
Quote:
Do you rely on the teachings of the Church at all?
It seems to me to be a simple question.
:smile:
In case you didn't notice, the topic of this thread is the linked story, which
describes something. Maybe you didn't read the story, so you don't know what's
being described therein, because
none of what you have posted here touches on
the content of the story.
Are you a troll? Are you attempting to hijack the thread?
If you're not a troll, and you're not attempting to derail this thread, perhaps you
are dissatisfied with the way I presented the story, and the manner by which I
summarized it for those who may not be willing to devote 15 minutes of their time
to reading the original when they don't know if it's going to be worth the effort?
If that is the case, you are more than welcome to provide for everyone reading
this, your own summary of the linked story, and your own commentary on the
virtues of its content, if any, or alternatively, your own criticism of how reading it
was indeed a waste of time for you, for whatever reason.
By the way, that's what I mean by
"substantive contributions." For if you have nothing constructive to say, then you must in fact be a troll,
which your other posts on this forum would not refute.
Topic: The Letter from Beyond -- written by a woman whose life was lost... (Read 3137 times)