How about be square with me, instead? 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
I don't think you get it still.
The mixing of the references I understood well enough, yet yourself having worded things as you did would likely have come across to a casual observer as having been something yet again, even as it appeared to me to be utterly distracting from what we were otherwise talking about theologically speaking, in here and now.
It's been requested that we not make mentions of freepmails.
But I won't be complaining to a moderator.
After all the nicey nicey then the justifications (such as further exampled here) there is still yet anything approaching actual communication.
There's plenty of lecturing, but no effort of discussion.
That was one of the isssues which I had with you. Remember?
Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. It's your issue. You asked for me to be "square," and I have done so.
Now that you've gotten that off your chest,then perhaps turn towards considerations for how the rhetoric (wording) used on official levels of the RCC makes it out to be that "they" are God upon earth?
Sitting in the Temple, showing proclaiming themselves (himself? not really, it's a corporate thing) to be God (upon earth).
I understand how that can be viewed and accepted by RC faithful (for they are being told that that's the way it is) yet it runs danger of horribly confusing identities.
We are not Him, and He is not us, even though we may be hid in him, communing as one with Him, as is outlined in John chapter 14.
That differs from praying TO those whom are perceived to have been 'saints' requesting that they pray "for us" etc.
Yet such prayers are not limited to that, for in RCC practice these same saints must either perform miracles (but invisibly, not seen, for they are thought to be in heaven) or else have the Lord perform those same in their honor.
Contrast that with how signs and miracles are spoken of in the Scripture in Mark 16
One more thing
If you truly desire for communication to be a one-way street, or else threads on FreeRepublic be for and by 'Catholics', then caucus up.
I won't stand for anyone otherwise trying to in effect enforce some quasi-caucus like shut-down of criticisms.
That's what I first brought to your attention. It doesn't appear to me to have yet sunk in, being that not only has there been no acknowledgement of that, but instead there were things like the skipping over of the provisional "then" attached to "then just leave" (*if you don't like the way the forum operates).
"Speaking of 294: since you find it necessary to criticize my literary form..."
Huh? I'm not sure what you are talking about there, but will assume that I was speaking more of concepts and principles themselves, regardless if toying around with "literary form" while doing so.
This is the perpetual thing which is troublesome.
Yourself having become offended (that's no mind-reading on my own part) in your comments and replies to myself never seem to get past the being offended part, to then seem to grasp (and attempt to address) what else it would be that I WAS saying.
Other than merely again repeat the "story" or set of explanations --- which were the very items I was attempting to raise points of discussion concerning.
Which is among the reasons why I have spoken critically of all the nicey-nicey "God Bless you" sort of thing. It leaves me cold and less than grateful, when everything else comes across as just so much lecturing. I truly have heard it all before.
Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.