Posted on 03/22/2014 5:42:31 AM PDT by Gamecock
One of the statements that Catholic e-pologists like to throw around against Protestantism is the relativism and disunity of private interpretation. While Protestants look to the scriptures for authority on faith-based issues, Catholics look to the authority of their visible church organization.
“"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” CCC 85
Based on these claims by Catholics you would assume that a church-approved commentary of the Bible would exist to lead Catholic laypeople, especially Catholic apologists, to the correct interpretation of each biblical passage. Yet nothing even close to such a thing exists. In fact, very few biblical passages have been officially defined by the RCC.
“The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field.” Catholic Answers
I guess 2000 years (if you believe the RCC’s claim to history) is not quite long enough to figure out the truth. While some Protestants have written commentaries on the entire Bible in their own lifetime, the “infallible” RCC has been unable to even attempt the same in 2000 years.
“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…” Catholic Answers
Off the top of my head, I do not no how many verses there are in the bible, but seven is certainly a very, very small percentage. Catholics keep telling me that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” - I think it would be more honest to say “a very slow development of truth”.
Where does that leave the Catholic apologist (e-pologist)?
“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Catholic Answers
Seems to me that much liberty could lead to chaos, and it does. Anyone who has interacted with more than one Catholic e-pologist knows that before long they begin to contradict each other.
But more to the point, how can the interpretation of a biblical passage by any Catholic apologist even be entertained? If their own infallible authority has only been able to define 7 passages of scripture over 2000 years, the apologist/e-pologist cannot have the integrity or the authority to even attempt to interpret scripture on their own. If they do, they fall into their own “private interpretation” trap so carefully, but foolishly, set for the Protestants.
But that would hinder the great liberty RCs have to wrest Scripture to support Rome when even she does not officially do so, which they can broadly do within the parameters of RC teaching.
“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty ” Jimmy Akin,, Catholic Answers
Others also hold that most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly.
Of course, what really is infallibly and what is "official" or an "authentic interpretation" and which parts are can vary from RC to RC.
One told me he would not believe anything unless it was from the Vatican site, while another just rejected that as the approved teaching of Rome when it provides liberal scholarship on the Bible. Another invokes the catechism, but another says not all of it accurately teaches truth. Another invoked the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur as providing assurance, and others disparage it as doing so.
the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur given for a reason, and have a history going way back to the Index, and are meaningless if they carry no weight and provide no assurance from the RCC.
But if these constitute any sanction at all, or if inclusion in a Catholic Bible (for America) infers any approval (and seeing as the murdered men over notes in that past then it must), then the commentary you may be looking for has been published for decades in the Catholic New American Bible, though it has had and will have some revisions. See here And which notes the Vatican's own site provides, some examples of which Greetings_Puny_Humans previously provided, if not the Bible helps most of the below is from.
that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson. the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
On Gn. 1:26 states that “sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth,” thus negating this as literal, and God as referring to Himself in the plural (“Us” or “Our”) which He does 6 times in the OT.
Likewise, the current footnote regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers regarding what the Israelites crossed over that it is literally the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!
It likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, as “apparently alluding to an old legend.” and explains away the flood as a story that “ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood.” Its teaching also imagines the story as being a composite account with discrepancies. The 1970 footnote on Gen. 6:1-4 states, “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” It goes on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.” - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks .
I also took a look at the Catholic commentary linked in this thread here, and which gives such sure teaching as (concerning the writer of 1 Peter)
Yet it is unlikely that Peter addressed a letter to the Gentile churches of Asia Minor while Paul was still alive. This suggests a period after the death of the two apostles, perhaps A.D. 70-90. The author would be a disciple of Peter in Rome, representing a Petrine group that served as a bridge between the Palestinian origins of Christianity and its flowering in the Gentile world.
Great points. We also have an angel twice in Revelation telling John not to kneel before him and WORSHIP GOD.
Please specify the post # for the claim of confession to lying to you. I read every post and no one admitted to lying. Some poster apologized to you for not adding a sarcasm tag. Where’s the smoking gun?
No more is necessary brother. Understand your testimony. Led to the same Well which gives Living Water. Great testimony! Praise God!
Can you give us a post # for the FREEPER who admitted lying?
To see the discussion in question, see the link on vlad’s home page, posts 91 & 93 in particular. As a law review member, I can tell you it is a common temptation. You finally find the source nugget you’ve been searching for, but it is somehow compromised, appearing in an adversarial context where it may have been edited, or some other sourcing defect. But now you know the primary source is out there and you know how to look for it, and lo and behold you find it. Now your problems are solved, right? But no, because to get it right, you have to go back to your original cut and paste and replace the defective quote with the real deal. You should never trust the two to be identical. Some extremely minor difference will come back to burn you, just as it did here.
But do not think that it is enough to merely agree with vlad that misrepresenting one’s sources is a form of lying. No, apparently you must come down with both feet, share an equal sense of outrage at the moral failings of another, or some other proof of like feeling, or else you will be condemned (yes, vlad, that’s my word choice and I’m sticking with it) as complicit in the lie and further proof of his general thesis that Protestant apologists lie.
Vlad and I discussed this in private mail. I will not here disgorge the entire content of that exchange (though if pressed by some unexpected necessity I would be glad to). But I will relate that vlad nowhere in that exchange offers anything remotely like a statistical validation of his claim. He has this one data point with the sourcing integrity, which he hangs on his home page surface like some morbid trophy, and he has a number of other events which rise at best to hearsay and/or opinion, but not proof. The coup de grace is his claim he had a Protestant preacher tell him explicitly that it was OK to lie about Catholics.
Now I have no doubt that would be an upsetting experience. But if I were a scholar of any accomplishment, I would know, absolutely KNOW, I could not use such anecdotal evidence to support making defamatory claims about an entire class of individuals. Therefore, to be perfectly honest, vlad, I suspect your credentials. If you are who you say you are, you should know better. I’d have lost my situation on Law Review for attempting to foist such trash on readers as if it were good argument.
BTW, vlad, question. Are you naming yourself after Vladimir the Great, who I think I’ve read somewhere introduced Christianity to Russia in 998? Interesting character he was.
“Vlad and I discussed this in private mail. I will not here disgorge the entire content of that exchange (though if pressed by some unexpected necessity I would be glad to).”
It doesn’t matter to me if you do. Feel free.
“But I will relate that vlad nowhere in that exchange offers anything remotely like a statistical validation of his claim.”
The truth I stated needs no such validation, and it doesn’t matter if you believe it does.
“He has this one data point with the sourcing integrity,”
Sourcing integrity? No, it is about something else. Can you guess what that is? And that is NOT all I have. I already told you that: “
“which he hangs on his home page surface like some morbid trophy, and he has a number of other events which rise at best to hearsay and/or opinion, but not proof.”
I know what did and did not happen. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree.
“The coup de grace is his claim he had a Protestant preacher tell him explicitly that it was OK to lie about Catholics.”
Youth pastor. He was a Protestant youth pastor. And this is exactly what I sent to you in reply to your message to me: “But you see no extremes in lying. See, a bigot lies. Protestant anti-Catholic bigots lie. They do it often and some of them even believe it is morally okay to do it because it is against Catholicism - just as a Protestant youth pastor told me in the late 1990s when I caught him spreading anti-Catholic lies through [name not to be mentioned at FR] comic books.”
“Now I have no doubt that would be an upsetting experience. But if I were a scholar of any accomplishment, I would know, absolutely KNOW, I could not use such anecdotal evidence to support making defamatory claims about an entire class of individuals.”
I made no defamatory claims. Everything I said was absolutely true. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree.
“Therefore, to be perfectly honest, vlad, I suspect your credentials.”
It doesn’t matter if you do.
“If you are who you say you are, you should know better.”
I know exactly what I have discovered here at FR and in many other places. I know exactly what was said to me. I know what was posted to me. I know what was posted at FR. I am exactly who I say I am and nothing I posted in this regard is anything but absolutely true.
“I’d have lost my situation on Law Review for attempting to foist such trash on readers as if it were good argument.”
It doesn’t matter what YOU would have lost. Your opinion doesn’t matter. What you think, or feel, or consider, or find fault with, simply doesn’t change the truth.
“BTW, vlad, question. Are you naming yourself after Vladimir the Great, who I think I’ve read somewhere introduced Christianity to Russia in 998? Interesting character he was.”
He is one of two Vladimirs I named myself after. It was 988, not 998.
By the way, I already redleghunter the exact information he asked for.
You are right about at least one thing. What I think about the truth doesn’t change the truth. But what you or I think about the truth can change us. Perhaps you don’t find that relevant. I do.
At this point I would ask the reader to take note: Vlad did not defend his false generalization (“Protestant apologists lie”) in any statistically meaningful way. He does not because he cannot. He has one data point based on facts in which we generally agree, the sourcing integrity incident. The rest are claims he has made that the rest of us cannot verify. However, even if we could verify each and every specific instance he claims, it would be far short of the sample size necessary to prove his point.
Now I have tried and failed to elicit a defense from him that can be inspected for its truthfulness. But at every turn he has offered only his private stash of anecdotal evidence and from these meager holdings he apparently expects me to accept his grand conclusion as self-evidently true.
I ask him therefore to accept as self-evidently true the following syllogisms, which follow his form exactly:
Syllogism 1:
Minor Premise: Springfield Reformer (SR) has Catholic family members who both advocate and practice abortion (sadly true, BTW).
Major Premise: SR’s Catholic family members accurately represent all other Catholics.
Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics advocate and practice abortion.
Syllogism 2 (same idea with a much larger sample set):
Minor Premise: A number of Catholic priests have been convicted of sex crimes.
Major Premise: Each of these priests is an accurate representative of priestly behavior.
Conclusion: Therefore all catholic priests are sex criminals.
For syllogism 2, there are, I believe, many more data points than anything vlad has adduced for his perniciously false generalization, which takes the exact form as those given above:
Vlad’s Syllogism:
Minor Premise: Some FReepers and a Protestant youth pastor have lied in the course of defending Protestantism and/or criticizing Catholicism
Major Premise: Those FReepers and that youth pastor are an accurate representation of everyone who either defends Protestantism or criticizes Catholicism.
Conclusion: Protestant apologists lie.
I hope everyone can see the pattern here. In every case, the defect is NOT in the facts of the minor premise, but in the unwarranted leap beyond those limited facts into the utter fantasy (and blatant falsehood) of the major premise. No conclusion based on such a weak foundation should be trusted, let alone regarded as self-evident, and wilfully promoting such a faulty conclusion constitutes at minimum a reckless disregard for the truth and therefore qualifies as defamatory.
For example, assuming there were even as many as 3000 legitimate cases of priests being caught in sex crimes, that still represents less than 1% of the total population of priests in the world (a little over 412,000 by some accounts). No serious scholar would attempt to use a sample of 1% to prove anything about a given group. It is laughable, Vlad.
Oh wait, I know, it’s irrelevant, right? Right.
Just like the Catholic family members of mine who like and practice abortion. Wouldn’t you argue my sample size is too small to draw my conclusion that all Catholics are advocates and practitioners of abortion?
No need to reply. I already know you consider these analogies irrelevant, immaterial and to be thrown out and disregarded because, well, just because. You never give me the “because” part, Vlad, probably because I am a Protestant and therefore unworthy. So I hope you will forgive me for my poor ability to fill in the gap. You’ve given me precious little to work with, other than your version of the Piers Morgan “How dare You!” defense.
And I have to admit. A content-free defensive tactic like that does save you a lot of work. You never have to actually address the vicious defects in your assertions if you simply declare any challenges irrelevant. Nice work if you can get it. I’m from more of a low rent district. I actually feel an obligation to try and make my case based on a fair handling of the facts and the logic. I know you don’t believe that. But you’re wrong. No I’m not. Yes you are. No I’m not. Oh Pulease.
“Vlad did not defend his false generalization (“Protestant apologists lie”) in any statistically meaningful way.”
Protestant apologists? I said PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS lie. Now you’re reducing that to “Protestant apologists”? How intellectually honest is that on your part?
Examples:
“anti-Catholic OUTRIGHT LYING.”
“many of the Protestant anti-Catholics here lie”
“Protestant anti-Catholic bigots.”
“Protestant anti-Catholic bigots lie”
“two or three Protestant anti-Catholic bigots”
“Protestant ANTI-CATHOLICS lie”
Now, on THREE occasions you have used “Protestant apologists” or just “Protestants” when I clearly am referring to Protestant anti-Catholic bigots. Again, how intellectually honest is it to use a term I never have in your accusations against me?
“He has one data point based on facts in which we generally agree, the sourcing integrity incident.”
That is simply not true - as I have demonstrated to more than one Protestant poster here already. The fact that I don’t share it with you does not mean I have only “one data point”. You see one of the other people I shared more information with is actually someone I respect even though we always disagree.
“Now I have tried and failed to elicit a defense from him that can be inspected for its truthfulness.”
Quite frankly that’s not true either. What you have done thus far is to say that the proof I gave you for one case was only about “source integrity” when it was clearly not only about that. Anyone who would take a clear cut case of outright lying and reduce it to a question of “source integrity” sure seems little interested in truth.
“But at every turn he has offered only his private stash of anecdotal evidence and from these meager holdings he apparently expects me to accept his grand conclusion as self-evidently true.”
Expect you? The only think I expect you to do is to act as you already have. I knew how you would handle this from the start. That’s not mind reading. That’s just from years of experience.
In an email between us I said this:
“Only God can do what needs to be done. I do sincerely wish you well.”
In direct response, you said this:
“As John Henry Newman said, Protestants, by necessity must lie. It’s all they have.”
Do you deny saying this to me?
As you point out, though some may, and i am sure some do or are ignorant, yet so RCs, as shown here on FR, and without apology, but does not mean all do. That they are generally bound to defend Rome, and wrest Scripture in so doing, and are hyper touchy about anything that disturbs their image of Rome, and thus reject evidence to the contrary, can be said to be generally true based on collective evidence.
But you are trying to be reasonable, which is often a challange here.
A well needed lesson. Thanks.
Check out how many Catholics have been killed in England, France, Asia, South America.
In Mexico as portrayed in the Cristeros movie over 200,000 Catholics were killed alone.
Today we have a vivid reminder of that with the Catholics being killed in the middle east.
It might be good to update your knowledge now and then, don’t you think?
In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
The Four Pillars of the Christian Life
Fragments of Catholic Truth: Yes to Christ, No to the Church?
The Uniqueness of Christianity: 12 Objections Answered
The Church – The Bride of Christ
Catholic Identity Once Again
Essays for Lent: The Church
Woe to the Solitary Man – A Brief Meditation on our Need for the Church
Jesus and His Church Are One
How Old Is Your Church?
Of course I don’t deny it. It’s true. But the generalization you got so upset about WAS NOT ABOUT PROTESTANTS. It was about PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS. If you want to change your story now, go right ahead.
I have not changed my story at all. Go back and reread the initiating posts. There was no distinguishing between Protestant apologists per se and Protestant anti-Catholic apologists. Ridiculous. Like Newman, you appear to lump us all into one big happy pot. In any event, I certainly never made that distinction in trying to understand you. Your claim that I have changed my story is a patent fabrication. Is it intentionally so?
But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you really make such a distinction? Is there, according to you, such a thing as a Protestant apologist who doesn’t lie?
1) If so, you appear to be in disagreement with your buddy John Henry Newman. His quote, which you sanction by your use, makes no distinction between Protestant apologists as a whole versus some subclass of Protestant apologists marked by bigotry. He simply sweeps everyone in because he cannot imagine any other view of the truth than his own as being honest. Do you agree with him or not? If not, why did you quote him?
2) If you really don’t believe there is such a thing as an honest Protestant apologist, then your false (and frankly lame) attempt to obfuscate by accusing me of changing my story falls flat on its face. Oh I know you will deny this. But all you have is a naked denial (readers watch carefully how he responds here). You cannot dress it up with a single fact.
Go back to your post #8, the post that triggered my response. Maybe in the privacy of your own mind you made some secret distinction, but if a poster or an author is doing PROTEST-ant apologia, they are necessarily PROTESTING the errors of Rome. Hence any Protestant apologist is necessarily one who opposes Rome. It’s baked into the job description. So there IS no difference and my description of your outrageously false and defamatory syllogism, which I have consistently maintained, is 100% accurate:
Minor Premise: Some FReepers and a Protestant youth pastor have lied in the course of defending Protestantism and/or criticizing Catholicism
Major Premise: Those FReepers and that youth pastor are an accurate representation of everyone who either defends Protestantism or criticizes Catholicism.
Conclusion: Protestant apologists lie.
Classic example of a false conclusion based on a false premise. Nothing but empty stereotyping.
And lest you continue to try to wriggle free of your own commitments, I would remind you of the outstanding opportunity I gave you to clarify the matter. In one of our email exchanges I said:
“You’d have to know with certainty the motivations of every Protestant apologist on the planet for the generalization to be true.”
To which you responded:
“That is not difficult to ascertain as they demonstrate their motivations often enough.”
Here I clearly show you I am understanding you to be including “every Protestant apologist on the planet,” and you not only fail to deny this gargantuan scope, you confirm your belief that they all lie. Although, as usual, you offer no data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps to support your planet-wide defamatory attack on all Protestant apologists.
So again, I counsel you to man up to your own claim: Do you believe all Protestant apologists on the planet lie? Or don’t you? A simple yes or no will do.
“I have not changed my story at all.”
I said PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS. You repeatedly said I said “Protestant apologists” when I never once mentioned “Protestant apologists”. At the least that is an error. At the worst, you’re simply fulfilling the generalization you attacked.
“Your claim that I have changed my story is a patent fabrication. Is it intentionally so?”
As I already noted: But the generalization you got so upset about WAS NOT ABOUT PROTESTANTS. It was about PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS.
“Do you really make such a distinction? Is there, according to you, such a thing as a Protestant apologist who doesn’t lie?”
Since I never mentioned “Protestant apologist” your question is irrelevant.
“John Henry Newman. His quote,”
I posted no quote from him. I simply summarized what he said. I have posted the quote before.
“which you sanction by your use, makes no distinction between Protestant apologists as a whole versus some subclass of Protestant apologists marked by bigotry.”
Irrelevant.
“He simply sweeps everyone in because he cannot imagine any other view of the truth than his own as being honest. Do you agree with him or not? If not, why did you quote him?”
I already answered the first question and thus the second one is irrelevant.
“2) If you really don’t believe there is such a thing as an honest Protestant apologist,”
When and where did I bring up “Protestant apologist”? When? Where? Why do you keep inventing something I did not say in this thread?
“then your false (and frankly lame) attempt to obfuscate by accusing me of changing my story falls flat on its face.”
Again, when did I say “Protestant apologist”? You will not be able to show anywhere in this thread where I ever used that phrase in any way like you are using it. Why would someone invent something I never said? How intellectually honest is it of someone to do that?
“Oh I know you will deny this. But all you have is a naked denial (readers watch carefully how he responds here). You cannot dress it up with a single fact.”
You are saying I said something I NEVER said. Why would someone claim I said something I never said?
“So again, I counsel you to man up to your own claim: Do you believe all Protestant apologists on the planet lie?”
Show me where I brought up “Protestant apologist”.
“Or don’t you? A simple yes or no will do.”
A simple showing of where I brought up “Protestant apologist” will do. Do it or don’t. If you fail to show a single use of that phrase on my part in any way remotely close to what you suggest, what will that tell us?
Silly wabbit, I already did. You just ignored it. To repeat from my last post:
And lest you continue to try to wriggle free of your own commitments, I would remind you of the outstanding opportunity I gave you to clarify the matter. In one of our email exchanges I said:
“You’d have to know with certainty the motivations of every Protestant apologist on the planet for the generalization to be true.”
To which you responded:
“That is not difficult to ascertain as they demonstrate their motivations often enough.”
Here I clearly show you I am understanding you to be including “every Protestant apologist on the planet,” and you not only fail to deny this gargantuan scope, you confirm your belief that they all lie. Although, as usual, you offer no data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps to support your planet-wide defamatory attack on all Protestant apologists.
There. Any reasonable reader, myself included, would understand your “they” as referring back to “protestant apologists.”
Again, I invite the reader to observe the evasive technique vlad is using here. It is masterful. Unfortunately, in the end it is also ineffective. Watch this:
Vlad, do you believe there is such a thing as a Protestant apologist that does not lie? A simple yes or no will do.
“And lest you continue to try to wriggle free of your own commitments, I would remind you of the outstanding opportunity I gave you to clarify the matter. In one of our email exchanges I said:”
I don’t need an “opportunity” to “clarify the matter”. It has been clear from the beginning.
“To which you responded:”
Your comment is irrelevant. The fact that you used a term I never did does not prove you were right in any case or way.
“Here I clearly show you I am understanding you to be including “every Protestant apologist on the planet,””
Your understanding is irrelevant.
“and you not only fail to deny this gargantuan scope, you confirm your belief that they all lie.”
Actually, no. But it doesn’t matter if that is what you believe either.
“Although, as usual, you offer no data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps to support your planet-wide defamatory attack on all Protestant apologists.”
It doesn’t matter what you consider to be “data beyond your worthless, tiny, anecdotal scraps”. Your opinion is irrelevant.
“There. Any reasonable reader, myself included, would understand your “they” as referring back to “protestant apologists.””
It doesn’t matter who you judge to be any “reasonable reader” nor does it matter what you think, feel, or believe he or they would conclude. Your opinion is irrelevant.
“Again, I invite the reader to observe the evasive technique vlad is using here. It is masterful.”
I am not using an evasive technique. Your opinion is irrelevant in any case. That’s not a technique. That’s simply a statement of fact.
“Unfortunately, in the end it is also ineffective. Watch this:”
It doesn’t matter what you consider to be ineffective.
“Vlad, do you believe there is such a thing as a Protestant apologist that does not lie? A simple yes or no will do.”
I decide when a simple yes of no will do to any question put to me by anyone, any time, anywhere.
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.