©Illustrated Theology. All Rights Reserved.
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button
- The Canons Of Dork
Only a dog owner could appreciate this one!
Thank you George – I get it now (although I have very little to do with dogs. Having read The Cross and The Switchblade, I had thought of “fleeces”, rather than your correct answer – The phonetic difference is only one “l”, so I was close … though obviously one doesn’t want to get TOO close).
John – the flies buzzing around the sack were the giveaway.
On second thoughts, Dr Clark, I’m shocked – I didn’t think Luther USED that language!
John — are you sure you are thinking of the same Luther I am?
Allan – Iff the Luther you’re thinking of is the one who used DIFFERENT language in his Table Talk (Something that was brought to my attention in response to my condemning out of hand John Osborne’s play – just in case you were thinking I was well read), yes.
From what I’ve read of Luther (regarding this discussion), he used much worse language from time to time over the years of his early 16th Century writings and disertations.
I think that’s a value judgement, G S – I only wrote “DIFFERENT”; but admittedly, the name of one A A Milne’s characters was NOT used as a euphemism in the vocabulary recorded for us by his pupils.
For “one”, please substitute “one of”