Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
I'm sorry. I misspoke.
You wrote:
“That’s funny. The same analogy would apply in asking a Catholic about anti-semitism.”
That wouldn’t be the same analogy. And what exactly is anti-semitic that we haven’t said is anti-semitic?
Oh, wait, you don’t answer questions. I forgot.
Lol. Its laughable you think you get to define what is antisemetic. Did you mispeak? lol.
You wrote:
“They do seem to follow me from one thread to the other, here, though—to personally assault and deride.”
I think you do plenty of derinding and personal assaults of your own. You also showed up in this thread around pst #497 or so. So who is following whom here?
You wrote:
“Lol. Its laughable you think you get to define what is antisemetic. Did you mispeak? lol.”
No, I did not “mispeak”, but apparently you mis-read. I didn’t say anything at all about defining anti-semitism. I said exactly what is anti-semitic that we haven’t said is anti-semitic? This was in direct reference to your previous post: “The same analogy would apply in asking a Catholic about anti-semitism.”
Can you actually defend your statement or will you again claim you committed a gaffe of some sort?
I'm sorry I misspoke.
I’m quite careful to avoid wording my satire etc. in a personally assaultive way. I’m not flawlessly perfect in any respect but I work earnestly quite hard at that.
Some others seem to work earnestly hard TO personally assault.
I don’t know what is so DIFFICULT about
SOME
RC reps distinguishing between two basic concepts
SAME vs DIFFERENT
but it would be appreciated if they would get up to speed on those basic concepts.
Working earnestly hard to avoid wording that is personally assaultive is DIFFERENT from working earnestly hard TO BE personally assaultive. I’m sure Magnificent Magical Mary knows such basics. Perhaps she could be consulted. I’d love to hear her comments on it.
In terms of my arrival on this thread . . . I had absolutely no individual in mind and still mostly don’t. I’m aware of Dr. E and some other frequent posters on this thread after I arrived but only loosely. And I don’t carry most of them in active memory.
I certainly have NOT been following ANYONE around on the thread or the forum. Just not my style. If they show up in my awareness, I may recall other factors related to them . . . but often, not many. I just tend to hold fewer and fewer things in association vis a vis folks I don’t have a LOT of intense CURRENT interactions with.
Of course, there are those who seem to delight in poking a very affronted personal, harsh, mean stick in my eye whenever I get within 150’ of them . . . those I sort of recall more quickly MOST of the time.
No . . . I’m confident that if a communciations class; a linguistic class; a sociolinguistic class; a psycho-linguistic class were to take on the subject of the Protty vs RC rep ‘discourses’ on FR, there would be some VERY lop-sided statistics rather unflatteringly pointing at very outrageous ROUTINE HABITS of the RC reps very far above and beyond anything similar on the Protty side.
Seems to go with the edifice’s construing itself as chief Inquisitor or chief pontificator or chief Christian or some other such nonsense.
You wrote:
“Yes, I’ve read the book, Vlad. And you should, too. And so should Titanites and anyone who wants a clearer picture of Pacelli.”
To get a clearer picture of Pius XII - and I already have a very clear one based on plenty of reading - I would read Sister Pascalina’s autobiography and not a book supposedly about her. To get a clearer picture of historical events we must read primary sources.
“However, you and Titanites seem to disagree because you provide glowing reviews from people who surely must have read the book and couldn’t possibly be planted stooges on Amazon, while Titanites is offering a very negative review of the book.”
We do not agree. I never said the point of view was mine. I notice that you are not refuting what the reveiwer I quoted claimed even though it would directly dispute your own posts here. Why is that? No, instead you are trying to say Titanites and I disagree when we don’t.
“So which is it? A great book that vindicates Pacelli or another book that slanders him and his “secretary.””
You could easily resolve which it is by refuting or supporting what the reviewer I quoted said. How about it?
“To me “La Popess” is, as I said, a fascinating read and a further glimpse into the very strange life of Pacelli and those who have and continue to defend him.”
But does the book say what the reviwer I quote said it says? Does it? I have no idea. Why don’t you tell us?
You wrote:
“I’m sorry I misspoke.”
Again? Wow, this seems to be a frequent problem of yours. How reliable are people who have such frequent problems making simple statements in debates?
I'm sorry. Have you never misspoke?
What you write is not satire. Also, it is clearly Protestants who have difficulty making proper distinctions here:
1) Several Protestants could not figure out how there could be different kinds of excommunications even after it was pointed out to them. They were unable to make the proper and obvious distinctions.
2) Posting a photo of German clergy giving a Nazi style salute (if that’s even what it was) is not proof of anything other than the fact they gave a Nazi style salute. When asked what case the Protestant poster was trying to make, he refused to even make a substantive reply. Could he make the proper distinctions? Apparently not.
3) Invincible Ignorance is now struggling to make proper distinctions in and about his own statements.
Why are the Protestant posters here so unable to do what you say we can’t do?
“No . . . I’m confident that if a communciations class; a linguistic class; a sociolinguistic class; a psycho-linguistic class were to take on the subject of the Protty vs RC rep ‘discourses’ on FR, there would be some VERY lop-sided statistics rather unflatteringly pointing at very outrageous ROUTINE HABITS of the RC reps very far above and beyond anything similar on the Protty side.”
I don’t think so. As I outlined above, the Protestants here are even having difficulty writing what they actually mean, making rational arguments, answering questions, etc. Also, it is painfully obvious that no matter what a class at a university would decide (and why would you rely on a liberal institution like a modern university filled with ignorant teenagers and left wing profs anyway?) the Protestants have little claim to the truth here.
1) None actually launched any serious refutation of the article at the thread opener or since.
2) Luther was little defended throughout the article.
You wrote:
“I’m sorry. Have you never misspoke?”
If I had would that make this any better for you?
Sorry, other than the occasional typo I have not “misspoke” in ages. I think we debate important things here. I try to always have my facts straight and to articulate them as clearly as I can. Don’t you think that’s important?
What a interesting construction on reality.
A skunk without a tail stinks twice as bad.
It’s interesting, and it is reality.
Notice how you don’t even attempt to refute it?
You seem to love any work of Catholic-hating fiction that hits the shelves.
Again, there can be no surprised among those who know your work.
Some Catholic-hating liars will quote any bigot willing to bribe a publisher to run some lies off to the printer.
I know!
The hubris is what gets me.
Can’t make an argument, but they insist they’re right anyway.
Can’t refute an argument, but they insist they’re right anyway.
Can’t answer a question, etc.
Hubris, just hubris.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.