Christ had to come to us as a man and suffer the trials and tribulations of a man. If He came to us as a God and with the powers of a God, people would have followed Him out of fear because they knew He could change anything if He desired, but because He suffered as a man, they followed Him out of love of who He was and what He taught.
You are right of course and I think all of us consider it quite often, and I did a post on the same subject a month or so ago, but these are doctrinal differences that have put a wedge between us for years, and I think they are better said then harbored inside.
It's like the old psychology of saving up stamps in a marriage, and then when you have a large pile of them, you turn them in all at once, and there goes the marriage.
I think it is better if we can get all these things out in the open and keep them there as long as we harbor no ill will, and as far as us getting mad at times, of course we do, but that is also good at times that we know we have passion in what we believe.
Most of the critcism your are reading has more to do with unsubstantiated assertions more so than beliefs. We could all just agree to disagree and these threads could end today, but that wouldn't be any fun. I do agree though we all need to tone down the rhetroic. Steven offered a heartfelt apology and I did acknowlwdge it on thread 152.
Are we not getting hung up by semantics.
Not really. We are getting hung up on providing credible sources for our claims. Some posters offer none for there claims and just assert, without proof, that Catholic documentation is bogus. It's what I call the Lorraine Boettner syndrome.