Does a christian have the right to feel offended and to get angry?

[El_Guero]

Not only do the authors you cite disagree with your style . . . the website you discredit is an actual English Literacy website for a university. And they chose bad examples to show how double negatives are intentionally obtuse.

The examples on leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html were stylistically appalling. The site states the rule incorrectly.

Nevertheless, a double negative is not a grammatical error unless it's along the lines of "You don't know nothing" where two negatives are meant as an emphatic negative. However, if the two negatives are used to cancel one another out, such as "That's not nothing", it is not incorrect.

I stand by the classical Strunk & White.

You actually cite the negative of the Shakespearian double negative. In his day, not only was English spelled appallingly, but double negatives were considered flowery speech and used for added emphasis . . . as in your example of you do not know nothing - for you do know something . . .

 

[Daisy]

***blather omitted***

"It was not incorrect." That usage is correct. Reread your Strunk & White, which is far from obscure.

 

[El_Guero]

Daisy - babble on dudette!

Have you read them the first time?

:thumbs:

Page 84 - "What if I am a pioneer? . . . then be one. But, do not forget that what may seem like pioneering may be merely evasion, or laziness . . . "

:thumbs:

If Strunk and White err it is on the side of clarity and not on the side of obscurity . . . I actually prefer not to use them because of that quaility. A double negative may be a grammatical error, but there are times when omitting needless words is more work than just writing it out in "Plain English".

 

[bapmom]

xdisciplex,

all grammar aside,
why do you feel so threatened at times? You do not have to get angry at someone in order to protect yourself. If you truly feel physically endangered by someone than you have the right to take measures to secure yourself.......legally there are some restrictions as to what those measures can be, but I hope you get what Im saying. You can go away from them, or you can restrain someone who is at that moment trying to do you harm, etc. BUt these measures do not require an angry reaction from you.

I just went through this sort of thing this last weekend. I was hoppin' mad at someone........fellow Christian.......in my church.......someone I know and work beside in the ministry. I feel they treated me wrong. I still think they were wrong. But I got beyond my anger in a few hours by praying and distracting myself with some Bible study, AND by some good godly counsel.

Let me say this, if you just cannot help being angry and you cannot get over it.....than you are letting your emotions rule you. You are not being led of the Holy Spirit. Your own will and emotions are in control. You need to give those to God, daily, and let Him grow you in this area.

 

[Daisy]

Have you read them the first time?

Cut my teeth on them.

It is best to be simple and clear, but I make no claim to be the best.

xdisciplex' declaration, "I cannot not be angry" was simple, clear and grammatically correct. He has problems dealing with anger. Your churlish response didn't seem to help.

Perhaps we ought not continue to hijack his thread.