Replies

I keep saying the meaning he gives to the quote is not in the quote and you keep saying, more or less, "It's not in the Bible, and you guys should stop believing that glory can only come to God through the Virgin.

We can't stop saying it because we never started! Sheesh!
= = =

Yes and no. It is inherently there in the language of that little card. It is not an off the wall inference. It is there in the language. Yes, it can be argued that it's not explicitly there. But I'd say it comes across to me pretty close to explicitly there.

But as an ESL teacher and a shrink . . . I'm not an off the wall idiot for saying it's there in the language of that card.

It's SOMEWHAT valid, imho, to say it's not explicitly in the card.

Taking all the probable--inferences--not even including the possible ones--just the probable ones--it's definitely there.

Any panel of neutral linguists from Mars would assert the same thing. Add in the sociologists and psycholinguists . . . and the argument thickens. imho.

MD, from our perspective, we SEE, HEAR, TOUCH . . . a plethera of evidence--piles and piles of it which point to massive flocks of ducks . . . and no small amount of processed duck food.

And when we talk about the ducks and the duck feathers and the flying, waddling, swimming, and God-forbid--the duck poop--then there's great furor about how unfair we're being.

Those aren't ducks THEY'RE TEAL! HARUMPH. Oh, well, excuse me!

Or those aren't duck feathers, they were at a costume party and borrowed some geese feathers. Oh, well, that explains everything.

There's a million and one rationalizations for calling the ducks anything but what they obviously are. And, SOMETIMES, to SOME degree, the rationalizations are SOMEWHAT defensible to a point.

But not really. And not foundationally and certainly not in function and effect; in psychology; in spirituality and sociologically. Just doesn't wash on even the most cursory of closer analyses.

And I say this with a LOT of affinity for individual Roman believers and even for the group as a whole . . . but my spirit within and Holy Spirit within will not be silent on this enormously horrid distraction at best and idolatry wholesale detracting wholesale from God Almighty and His pure and simple Gospel.

And, I still LUB

Thank you for pinging me to this sidebar, but truly I do not wish to participate beyond pointing out the obvious - namely that we will be judged in the same manner and measure we judge others, so we all ought to be very careful both with what we say and with what we think.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matt 7:1-5

(What's a neural linguist? now THAT sounds fascinating! Sometime I'll tell you about my kid and sign language)

Taking all the probable--inferences--not even including the possible ones--just the probable ones--it's definitely there.

I guess I'm going to need you to come up with a significant portion of RC's who think that. Why? Because I read that, and I just don't see what you're saying in it. I don't think you'd find a RC on this list who would say that the only way we are to glorify the Trinity is through Mary and that we must glorify the Trinity through her.

So it's like I am not part of this sample of deluded people, and I don't know anyone who is, and yet I am to stop thinking what I think because somebody else, somewhere, whom no one has ever introduced to me, might think something different which is bad for them to think.

On that basis we should at least consider burning all the Bibles because of what "THOSE people" thought upon reading them, despite the fact that others have profited greatly from reading them. (Speaking of which, there is a JW thread against the Holy Trinity somewhere. I pinged Blogger to it.)

You can show me no ducks. I wasn't being artificial when I said that's not a duck. In fact it took me a minute to see what the fuss was about.

Long Boring Parable:

A teacher from London is sent to a missionary school up in the border country. First day of class, a group of "gormless" country boys comes into class sits down and looks at her stupidly and passively. To start the conversation she draws a sheep on the board -- and this is sheep country. She's proud of her drawing. it's detailed, from horns to rump, from saddle to hooves - a beautiful sheep!

She then asks the class, "Can anybody say what this is?" Sullen shifty looks at one another, silence.

"Nobody?" (She thinks, they just CAN'T be that stupid.") YOU then, James: What is that a picture of?

"Well, I don't rightly know, ma'am. Y'see, the body looks like Leicester or maybe a Cheviot, but the head is more like a Scottish Blackface, the hooves look like Romney hooves but the fleece is definitely Lincoln wool. So I can't say WHAT it is!

It may look like a duck to you ...

but my spirit within and Holy Spirit within will not be silent on this enormously horrid distraction at best and idolatry wholesale detracting wholesale from God Almighty and His pure and simple Gospel.

That sho' 'nuff will keep you from learning what we think, whether or not you agree with it..