The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
ripmarcel, you can put up all the smoke and mirrors you want.  You can say someone was insulting or whatever, and maybe they were, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point to discuss.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but that does not make an argument.  It's clear your mind is made up and no one will convince you.  Fine, I'm not an apologist nor do I pretend to be.  As I've said, I don't care about convincing you, but I am interested in hearing your arguments and our dissecting of arguments as a group so we have more insight into the issue.

But you should realize on your side that repeating things over and over and not addressing points of contention makes your argument fairly worthless.  There is no discussion when that happens.  Nothing is achieved, it's simply advertising of a position.  OK, we know your position and reasons for it.  If that's all you want to say, message received.

But if you want to discuss things, then you need to answer challenges and such regardless if you feel offended in how they were presented.  While I may have been offensive to you in some manner, there is nothing ad hominem that I can see in my statements.  They are relevant to the point at hand, and so are my questions for you.

If you won't or can't answer them, OK, fair enough.  But please stop repeating the same things over and over like people are going to believe you are correct when you won't defend those arguments.


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-22-2010, 11:34 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)