Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-04-2009, 07:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:I didn't say threaten or intimidate.
I never said you did but you did said COERCE and that is what coerce can means. See the above definition.
As I've said before, this is why English is a bad language to use for theological discussion.
I used the English word STOP, not intimidate or threaten. English seems only to be a problem to you.
Yes, it is a problem for me. I don't like English but sadly it's the only language I know. If you meant "stop" only, then why did you type "coerce" in parenthesis along with "stop". "Coercion" has more than one meaning, and DH (to me anyways) implies "threats/intimidation" and not just "force". But anyway even if DH does mean merely "force", there is still the "within due limits" clause, which is enough to me to imply that an erroneous conscience may not have the right to such freedom as the document mentions. It doesn't even mention what kind of conscience anyway.

No offense to anyone, but debating the word choice in this situation is semantics and misses the point made by the post. Regardless of what word was employed, the point made is the same.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by INPEFESS - 06-04-2009, 07:53 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)