Posted on 12/22/2013 1:46:25 PM PST by piusv
I thought my posts have been clear that I disagree with your interpretation of the homily.
I’m not asking is you agree. I’m asking if you see the contrast that’s being made.
The problem is that such a contrast contains fallacies on both ends of it. Taking two false notions doesn't constitute a valid idea just because it's set up to look like a contrast.
Therefore, to continue to say "oh he's just making a contrast, why do you three have such a problem with that?" makes a mockery of the actual content. And then, to go even further and, suggest that we are liars because we don't see the valid contrast according to you just insults our intelligence, our character, and our very Catholic being. And you still don't seem to think you were wrong to call us liars.
So, you do see what we’re saying.
Good. After all that explaining, one would hope so.
Wow. That’s what you got out of my whole post and that’s all you’re going to say?
So, my gut reaction to your insistence that I answer the “contrast” question was correct: You had no intention of listening to the valid points I made wrt the “contrast”. All that matters to you is that there was a CONTRAST! EVEN if it was a completely erroneous contrast!
LOL.
I’ve gone into detail in many other places on this thread. There was no reason to do it again.
My concern at this point was simply to understand if you could see the point that was being made. You do see it. That’s good. (It also takes you out of the set of those who say they don’t see it. So, you aren’t in my set of those being dishonest about even seeing it.)
When using a blog as the source for an article, if the material is primarily religious then it can be posted to the Religion Forum. If not, it should be posted to the Bloggers Forum.
Post the whole page from the blog when it is your own blog to avoid being accused of "pimping" a blog, i.e. using Free Republic to get more hits to your own blog.
Just because you no longer consider me a liar doesn’t change the fact that you have personally attacked other posters here. Not sure why (a) that sort of “making it personal” is allowed on the forum and (b) that is something a Christian preacher sees fit to do.
It’s one thing to personally attacked an individual and another thing entirely to say that a disclaiming group is dishonest that has had something explained to them time and again and pretend that they don’t see the distinctions being made. I suppose they could be dense, but one gets a feel for the ability of people after conversing with them for a while.
It is fascinating to me that a Catholic is taking me to the Religion Mod because of my defending their Pope who they think might be treading on heresy about their Mariology. And it’s not because I’m defending any perceived heresy but because I’m saying that perception is wrong, that their Mariology has not been violated.
It’s a new place for me on Free Republic. Mod, feel free to smack me if I deserve it.
Isn’t it quite possible that they just see things differently than you given they are coming from a different perspective? Or better yet, perhaps they were focusing on the erroneous content like I was so much so that the fact that there is a contrast is irrelevant? I think to assume the worst here is unfair at best. Maybe you should go back and re-read their comments to you.
All I’m asking is if they see the contrast we’re making.
It’s like my debates with you all over the assumption of Mary and your calling attention to the Revelation Chapter 12 and the woman in the heavens.
You could ask me if I see how you get there. I might disagree with that interpretation totally, but I can say that I see how you’d be saying it. That doesn’t mean I believe it, just that I’m being fair with the data you present.
You’re right. I shouldn’t have posted that way. Hopefully it’s understandable why I would react that way given the fact that up to that point it went unnoticed that the same poster repeatedly called me (and others) a liar. I don’t usually post this way unless provoked.
But thank you for making it clear that ALL of us need to cut it out. I will try harder not to let others’ opinions of me to get under my skin.
Salient point.
Repeatedly is not so, but the charge itself is only partially true. I called a group liars IF they said they didn't see a particular point that was being made. (I didn't say "accept" that particular point.) I later acknowledged that those in such a group could just be dense, but I discounted that having seen their ability with the language. I knew I wasn't speaking to unintelligent people.
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.