Kiss on!
There is a master in the house here. You are him. Your presentations are elegant. Catholics here appreciate you very much. Our own experiences are with those who are neither hostile nor bitter, therefore your little studies can fall on more grateful ears, thanks be to God.
This was a perfectly wonderful dissertation as well as a concise accounting of some very well educated and informed proddys, who got it, and fell into the arms of Christ’s Church. I appreciate the review of some of my favorites, dear Steelfish.
I am convinced you have broad audiences, full of those whom are far better prepared and more capable of appreciating your research, expertise and superior mind than here, so I thank you.
It is generous of you to do your penances here. :) Thank you. Rita
This was a perfectly wonderful dissertation as well as a concise accounting of some very well educated and informed proddys, who got it, and fell into the arms of Christ’s Church. I appreciate the review of some of my favorites, dear Steelfish.
I am convinced you have broad audiences, full of those whom are far better prepared and more capable of appreciating your research, expertise and superior mind than here, so I thank you.
It is generous of you to do your penances here. :) Thank you. Rita<<<
OK, this is either the most cultish thing I have ever read, or Steelfish paid off his sister with a trip to Hawaii to write this.
Perhaps you would be interested in providing the list of oral traditions that the church claims are handed down from Paul, that no one has yet been able to produce.
Kiss on!
That's laughable.
I suppose if one is fond of ornate, and even blatant inaccuracies, then this imagined elegance could be a thing to cherish...
Even when corrected and shown irrefutable proof to the contrary of what is being asserted in this alleged 'elegance', what is the pattern which has been repeating here, but for there to be re-asserting of that which has been disproved, or else a silent scurrying away, to then again have the same elements of overall thesis (which were just shown to not be true, as presented) resurface later on some other thread, with it all bundled up with generalized insults aimed towards those who make the effort to bring and show what the real truth of some matter or another is?
I do take note of just what it is that is being praised.
Are you sure, Rita, that you wish to support those efforts without reservation, and effusively so?
The man made erroneous claims aimed at myself, regardless of my own having provided the source link which refutes claims he made (as for my own comment made toward himself).
I come across your own comment (Rita) as something of a slap in the face.
I don't care much at all for being falsely accused, which your own comments somewhat by default, join in and support, thus sharing in with all which he has said. In this instance, on this thread, Steelfish's error-filled remarks, as for my own comments, do not deserve support, unless one desires to cling to what has been proved wrong -- which doesn't make much sense to do, all-in-all.
One of the individuals which he trotted out as some example of being allegedly 'smart', is on record for making comments contrary to Steelfish's overall position, which position (more or less) is that "Protestants", whoever those people are, are all ignorant, or else just stupid, etc., and if they were not so ignorant and stupid, they would convert to Roman Catholicism --- all of which is as extremely rude as it is in error, particularly when that is attempted to be applied to all Protestants, included educated theologians (of which there are many thousands of which that do not convert to Roman Catholicism, regardless of all the efforts made in RCC camp to amend their own past theological errors, while still attempting to assert they have not ever made any).
Contrary to one of Steelfish's attempted rebuttals (made at comment #690, which is the comment which you praised so much), the comments which I quoted from Beckwith were not made before Beckwith reverted back to Roman Catholicism, but after he had done so.
See for yourself, here --->http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772
...which means Steelfish continues to make inaccurate statements, regardless of proof available to the contrary of those statements. You may call that "elegant" or think it masterful -- but the question begs -- masterful of what?
Regardless of my own attempt to steer things more towards truth here;
came the error-filled characterization of my own remarks in his own comment # 690 which you praised so much.
As for the rest of #690, I myself simply by-passed, rather dismissed out-of-hand the portions not pertaining to my own comments, having good reason for doing so, being that there was lack of accuracy in regard to my own comments ---- there was no compulsion for myself to need (once again) address whatever other remaining errors in his discourse there were likely to be...admittedly also, it would have taken considerable time and effort to dig back through whatever series of back-and-forth commentary was being made, keeping close tabs on it all,then attempting to address whatever it was which was central-most, instead of merely relying upon lopsided commentary from one perspective (Steelfish's own) and then allow that one-sided sort of thing to set and guide the narrative. I refuse to play along as dictated towards (and have good enough reasons for choosing not to do so).
Is it any surprise that Catholics are often not taken seriously on these pages, save perhaps by other Catholics who are not paying close enough attention to detail?
It's too bad, for not all [Roman] Catholics are wrong, or else simply mistaken all of the time as frequently as as deeply as is Steelfish quite often is when he wades into the religion forum portion of this website.
And of course many others are often mistaken about something or another too, at times, at the least. Myself even included --- for I'm not infallible, nor claim to be so.
Beckwith also did not step down from his prior position at a theological seminary solely due to reverting/converting back to [Roman] Catholicism (as Steelfish appears to be claiming, although that is brought out as the "biggy") but for other reasons also.
All of that sort of thing is rather time consuming story to retrace, for there are dribs and drabes of it scattered through various interviews and articles --- but why bother?
It's not like he did so chiefly for theological & historical reasons with himself being something of a professor of those things...
There had been a tenure controversy in the years prior (which Beckwith eventually won tenure for, so to speak, but it's a long, and involved story with a few twists and turns) including Beckwith being a Discovery Institute contributing member.
He advocated pressing for ID (Intelligent Design) be promoted in the classroom. That went against a founding family contributor of the seminary where he was president for a while, since the seminary was not to engage in politicizing of religious issues (if I'm recalling the initial controversy correctly enough...).
Though I tend to agree with ID as hypothesis -- and believe in it's tenets more or less -- it's still not exactly science.
But then again, many of the presuppositions deeply embedded within evolutionary theory are not all that actually scientific either. Like -- how the various hypothesis of how life first began, as something of self organizing cosmic accident, or else life coming to earth from some guessed-at process of Panspermia which is not exactly "science" other than being far from well supported hypothesis, as it also virtually kicks the can down the (cosmic) road, so to speak, in regard to just how life itself initially "self-organized" from and by strictly materialistic processes. But I digress...
Also Beckwith's expertise is (even according to his own descriptions) not "theology" per se, but is philosophy (including the philosophy of religion) and ethics, instead. So in this too, in previous comment, Steelfish rather misrepresented the man...
AND there is the thing about Beckwith's own wife converting to Roman Catholicism (was it reverting for herself, also? I really don't know, but it is a possibility I suppose) almost right before before he himself eventually reverted back -- which factor is not mentioned very much by those whom once wrote about his conversion reverting back to Roman Catholicism, but cannot but be a significant factor, yet one likely impossible to accurately weigh & evaluate.
Shortly AFTER resigning the position, Beckwith then announced his going back to the ecclesiastical association of his own childhood, although Beckwith in some interview or another remarked he had been considering doing so for some time (a couple of years or so, perhaps).
Should I prove this to yourself? I could provide a long list of links. (should I even bother?)
Does it really matter all that much? Again, the man was not a Ph.D theologian, but held doctorate in Philosophy, and specialized in interaction with the wider culture at large in those areas where faith, reason & ethics could be seen to publicly interact (which sort of interaction drives the secular portion of society bonkers, and the secularists would like to, and are attempting to silence & ban). So more power to Beckwith in those efforts, I would guess...
If not searching the matter yourself --- why take Steelfish's word for anything concerning this? I've already proved him to be in error, at least to some extent -- and that extent be much of what his own polemic strongly relies upon.
But go ahead. If you so desire to support inaccuracy and error, then support away.
Just don't whine, if or when it doesn't in the end, work out as one may prefer.
One must at least attempt to neutrally weigh competing evidences.
It's called intellectual integrity.
I'm not finding much trace of that in the remarks of "Steelfish".