to which you relied;
By making unclear mix and match accusational sort of comment ...that makes it appear as one thing while it is yet another ---
You hope to do well?
How about be square with me, instead?
If I raise complaint about the way(s) you can come across, instead of continually handing me high & mighty brush-off sort of lecturing reply, do something else, and then I won't be so irritated with your "style".
One begets another.
A long while back I called you out on what appeared to me to be efforts to browbeat people here into not commenting negatively against the persistent barrage of Roman Catholic promotional propaganda this forum has long been subjected to.
Anyone (who is a member) can post articles. Any who is signed up can argue for or against.
If myself doing so while also pointing to flawed suppositions which bear upon positional statements (replying, returning comment for comment and supposition) amid all the posing and posturing a few indulge in --- is too much to bear --- then how would anyone ever think they could promote the same agendas (while acting the same way) elsewhere -- like -- in the real world, face to face?
Meanwhile, I am one (among more than a few present here at FreeRepublic) who is capable of rationally engaging in theological discussion.
As I've said several times over now --- I've not been getting anything much from yourself for the efforts other than the same declarative statements and quoting from CCC etc.
All along I've been trying to explain the (multiple) reasons for not buying into the storylines tangent to those items of discussion which are most often disputed, both on these pages and elsewhere.
Similar conversations have been going on for about 500 years now. One can track how those have changed just a little bit here and there, with RCC positions having in many ways adopted portions of the theological views held by those of Reform traditions albeit most often expressing those same, similar or parallel views in differing wording -- while also trying to keep hold of "papacy" and prayers to departed saints (and the Marionsism which is smack-dab in the middle of that) at the same time.
Believe what you will. Bring it here though, and it may face being inspected, dissected, roasted, and then --- rejected.
The religious forum has become poison on FREE REPUBLIC.
Some of you people are vermin....”christ like” my ass.
It’s really sickens to see this crap going on while ISIS is beheading, shooting, and burning “christians” alive....and they wont care of you are a catholic or a protestant.
They will put our heads on pikes side by side...then point and laugh at the silly weak infidels who were so busy arguing which head should be placed on which pike first.
Food for thought.
But religious zealots never listen to logic.
Okay. I tried to be polite and to avoid this, but, Per your request, here it is:
2/2/2015 4:46:50 PM
It began with this: a personal, accusatory comment directed by you, to me, on a post made to another person. The post was mentioned; the subject unaddressed. You went straight at me. The unfounded accusation that followed, and the comment afterward, frankly, creeped me out.
Our posts continued, same thread, numbers 260; 263; 267; 274; 291; 294. Speaking of 294: since you find it necessary to criticize my literary form, please review the correct use of "who" vs. "whom" and of reflexive pronouns, such as, "yourself." It's almost as annoying as the condescending attitude you project in forum and email.
Speaking of email:
02/02/2015 3:13:42 PM PST (excerpt):
In an unsolicited email, you stated the following:
I do not believe a word that you say, although you may be, in part, or goodwill. Yet that breaks down rather rapidly, doesn’t it?
Your general tone and tenor, comes across as a well-studied “act”.
---My Reply 02/02/2015 4:08:45 PM PST sent (in full):
Blue, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I can’t change the way you think. We are faceless names on a computer server.
Those who actually know me, know I’m no liar. So does God; so do I. That’s what’s important.
God bless you!
02/02/2015 6:03:14 PM PST (excerpt):
Far too many (but not all) of your religious cohorts are not -— and are instead hypocrites TO THE MAX, yet seemingly entirely blind to their own selves, how they are, and how they come across. Yet I have witnessed yourself agreeing with more than a few of those, even as you like to make it out as if you are here for peace.
---My Reply 02/02/2015 6:30:14 PM PST sent (in full, with quote from previous email):
“From BlueDragon | 02/02/2015 3:13:42 PM PST replied I do not believe a word that you say, although you may be, in part, or goodwill. Yet that breaks down rather rapidly, doesn’t it?
Your general tone and tenor, comes across as a well-studied ‘act.’”
The above was your statement in the previous email. I simply said I cannot change what you think. God bless you!
02/02/2015 6:45:12 PM PST replied (in full):
You are too fully confusing what I wrote to you — with what I truly think.
But no, I don’t believe you very much at all — and have provided some clues as for why.
You may *think* yourself honest...yet not realize just how superficial that alleged ‘honesty’ actually is.
And thus, feeling harassed and annoyed, and frankly, fed up, I wrote the following:
---My Reply 02/02/2015 6:49:52 PM PST sent (in full):
I thank you in advance for refraining from further email to me.
God bless you!
Disregarding my request, you sent the following:
02/03/2015 2:19:31 AM PST read (in full):
Then why send me one saying that?
That’s like trying to get in the last word, while not addressing the issues at hand...
Are you actually concerned with this “one sided-ness” sort of thing which you mentioned — or not? I did not bring up the subject, as one that could be taken to a Moderator.
Yet you did, recommending to me that I should — when it was not me at all who had the complaint in the first place -— if applied to FR forum moderation.
Look to your own one-sidedness, and what is much worse, that of persons like ‘verga’ (and a significant number of other Roman Catholics) if you truly are concerned with persons being one sided.
For that sort of one-sidedness, I cannot go to a moderator, but instead must take that to the individuals who are “one sided”.
Salvation is another example of being “one-sided” — demanding of Protestants things which she does not go after her own co-religionists for failing to do, in her feeble effort to find some fault with those whom dare supply criticisms towards particular aspects of Roman Catholicism.
Open your eyes man, please.
All the playing nicey-nicey while yourself being also (at times) a polemicist yourself, is to be having things both ways.
Do one or the other. In other words...be more consistent. And then, after a while of that, I may take yourself serious.
Once again, PER YOUR REQUEST, I am being "square" with you. Your accusations; statements on how you were observing me; unsolicited and unwanted email make me hesitant to discuss anything with you. Your attitude toward my Catholicism is no surprise here.
<>
I'm a Catholic. I follow those teachings you state you have heard so often. That is what I believe. I will be quoting those when my beliefs are derided in forum. That's just the way it is. It's intrinsic to these forums that my Catholicism is hated; categorically, I, too am hated by some. That's life, and nothing or no one will change that. Reject it if you choose; I'm not here to proselytize. I am here to learn. If you or anyone else makes fun of my Faith, derides it, know I will be coming back with the same words that you say "irritate" you.
I don't like being blunt; I try to be polite, but I'm human too, and frankly, some push the envelope to far.
Whether or not you believe me, I do wish all here God's Blessings. Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. It's your issue. You asked for me to be "square," and I have done so.
God bless you!
Grateful