Replies

You: But nowhere in your lengthy, nine-paragraph response is there any semblance of an answer.

Me: "down the "specifically" path is "he said/she said" and analysis of the perceptions of a 12 year old."

There's your semblance of an answer, it's the only answer I'm going to provide because this issue isn't THE issue. The point wasn't that Dobson's psychology was harmful to me, the point was that Dobson's psychology was the only applied "theology" Protestantism ever provided me with... and several other things that have nothing to do with Dobson.

You: By making that statement, whether you want to give that impression or not, you seem to be saying your comments are as clear and weighty as Scripture

Me: Without comparing myself to the Divine Author of Sacred Scripture or my typing to His Word I still think it's important to consider that if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.

If I write the word "the" and you consistently read it as the word "catflap" I'm not comparing myself to the Deity if I say you can't read.

You: You've already acknowledged my question as a "halfway decent point,"

Me: OK, well finally we get to a point that seems halfway decent.

With a tiny amount of levity I ask whose side are you on anyhow? If my secondary point is to show that you're not paying attention then you've demonstrated that dramatically several times in one post. Oh, and it is and you have. We were at the point where you were behaving halfway decently, you hadn't raised a "halfway decent point".

"Why not wait to direct the conversation toward another goal until we accomplish the first goal?" Because your goal is not my goal. We're not going to explore the issue. Well, I'm not, I suppose you can do whatever you like.

With minor digressions I have been attempting to return the discussion to the original point raised by stfassisi when I very briefly mentioned Dobson by writing "No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy."

MarkBsnr asked me to elaborate and I did knowing that there would be snark with which to deal.

Then you suggested repressed memories, I dismissed the suggestion and here we are.

You: Instead, you compare some of us to "decadent atheists"

I'll repeat the entire paragraph:

The accepted standard of conduct and behaviour of people on the internet is beneath the dignity of rational creatures of God. I mentioned another website in an earlier post, on the whole it is populated by liberal atheists (they are at least the most vocal participants), other than the specific subject matter I would be hard pressed to discern the difference between the conversations there and the conversations here. So what's the point of Christ if His loyal disciples are indistinguishable from those who wallow in the spiritual decadence of this world?

I stand by that. I regret ever mentioning James Dobson because that allowed the entire discussion to be derailed.

The world wants to know what the big deal about Jesus, well it used to in a way, our own behaviour has answered the question for most people. I include myself in this.

I am a horrible example of a faithful Catholic because I know what a good Catholic should be like, or rather WHO a good Catholic should be like. So the question is, What should a good Protestant be like... or even who?

To return entirely to what stfassisi was talking about in post 5878 with:
"When I was involved in a protestant community I was always amazed by the people running around telling everyone they were saved and guaranteed heaven. Meanwhile they would watch the smuttiest TV shows on and talk about it along with speaking about others behind their back. I realize we are all sinners and this is not indicative of all protestants, but this is brazen,it’s as if in saying you are saved gives one a license to be proud of sin"

What practical tools should or does Protestantism offer to the believer to avoid becoming that sort of person? Does it matter?

I am a horrible example of a faithful Catholic because I know what a good Catholic should be like, or rather WHO a good Catholic should be like. So the question is, What should a good Protestant be like... or even who?

Martin Luther created the archetype and the process of creating one's own religion by simply looking in the mirror and writing down what he thought he saw.

Given that we are on approximately the tenth generation of Protestant evolution, the glass appears to be increasingly warped. Christianity as practiced by especially the newer, or the newer evolving Protestant churches is simply the slapping together of selected Scripture with the repudiation of the Christian faith and the Church Fathers, except, again, for cherry picked phrases and sentences that support the incidental beliefs of the moment.

Calvinists refuse the inclusionary verses of Scripture, relying on terms such as 'elect' to somehow include themselves in a select group, while feeling superior to those excluded. Those who refuse to embrace paedobaptism, the same. And the Eucharist, and icons, and relics, and veneration of saints...

My friend, you have opened up yourself to descriptions of past hurts. It is not that which condemns you in the eyes of the anti Catholics, it is the fact that you are an unashamed Catholic apologist. And that is the worst condemnation of all to many of those here.