Yes, it is.
The questions arise when there are different possibilities of emphasis, nuance, contextual meaning, among other thing.
Yes, again. Many of the more unlearned can't grasp this and really do think that whatever the English seems to mean must always be what it means.
I see you are not in that class, and apologize for thinking you were.
For Cronos to simply bat away the question regarding the meaning of Brothers and Sisters with " you don't get that it means cousin" is not much of a response.
Well, these conversations do go around and round. Simply stating his case may not be much of a response for someone who wants to argue the particular sense of a Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic word. But for most people, stuck in their own tongue, to be jarred into thinking differently may work.
You are plainly not interested in convincing others, as you are already on board what you believe to be the one true church and do not think you should try to make your points winsomely.
I call them like I see them. When people put forth specious arguments, I call them on it. You seem to be about the same, perhaps that is why we are now engaged.
The notion that one is historically illiterate not to concur with Bellocs premise that Islam and Protestantism are related " heresies" is more of you talking to yourself. That is an opinion, not a commonly held view.
It's all opinions here, isn't it? Certainly to claim that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity is historically illiterate. Again, I call 'em like I see 'em. And not every criticism I have of every Protestant is a criticism of you personally.
I am confused by your then citing the ,in my opinion, false religion of Islam to bolster your Marian beliefs.
I am confused as well. I merely pointed out that people who share a common culture and language family might have a better insight into what their words and concepts (like "brother") mean than we do. In no way was I using Islam to bolster any argument about Mary. Perhaps you can't seperate my arguments about language from those about religion.
You stated in your " disclosure" that you had succumbed to the lies of the Navigators.
I suppose you meant something when you wrote this. What that might have been remains a mystery. What are you talking about?
To lie is to intend to deceive this implies that they knew that what they told you was not so and did it anyway. Do you actually believe that? I do not believe that the serious Catholics here are lying. I believe that we both see the evidence of reality and Scripture and come away with different takes. Someone has to be wrong on the issues that are absolute. But to say they lied to you shows no charity, and will repel those trying to engage in discussion about points, both doctrinal and theological.
Whom did I accuse of lying? What are you talking about?
SD
I believe you did get the two of us confused. LOL
I also believe your post did not accurately reflect what I said, On a personal note, there is one thing you need to recognize: I had a horrible catechesis as a child and fell victim to a group of Navigators while living in a college dorm. As a result of this, I fell into the trap of being in various fundamentalist/evangelical groups for years.
You will please note that I clearly did not use nor imply the term 'liar.' I stated that I fell victim to a group of Navigators.
I later on stated the following: And, of course, when I actually understood the doctrine, I found that most of what I was deceived with first, by the Navigators, and secondly, by a host of various fundamentalist/evangelical groups, were based on rather transparent lies.
You will again note that I did not call either the Navigators nor 'various fundamentalist/evangelical groups' either liars or deceivers.
Having said that, the anti-Catholic rhetoric they spewed was 99% based on lies, distortions, and deceptions. But that is not the same as an accusation of them being liars, distorters, or deceivers. On the contrary, I actually believe both those groups I was involved with for a few years, and my anti-Catholic FReeper colleagues, are all very sincere and are truly concerned with the souls of those of us who are in the historic, apostolic Church.
A person could be brought up to use the word 'Green' when he sees the color the rest of us call 'Blue.' He can be very adamant about the fact that he is seeing 'Green' -- but that doesn't stop him from being wrong and propagating a lie -- he just doesn't realize that it's a lie he's propagating. A child, raised as a member of the Soviet Nomenklatura, could believe that his way of life is the truth...even fight a war over it...the person would actually be the sincerest person in the world, but what this child of the old Soviet elite would be fighting for would still be a lie.
I believe that Jack Chick, Bob Jones, Ian Paisley, et al, are all very sincere people. I am confident that they believe they are doing the Lord's work. But I also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the information they spread is false (i.e., a lie). So, although Jack Chick, Bob Jones, Ian Paisley, et al, are not liars, if I believe the crap they spew, I have been deceived. Further, what I was deceived with were lies.
Does that make it a bit clearer for you?