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.