“You seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue.”
That’s incredibly hypocritical coming from someone who reduced OUTRIGHT LYING - as admitted by the one who posted it - to a problem of “source integrity”.
Nothing you said in any way shows that I have been wrong in any way. Everything I posted on this topic has been absolutely correct. It’s just that simple.
“Will you own them?”
I already did. Repeatedly. That’s what you keep ignoring.
You entertain me, and make me sad, all at once. You of course will not accept this, but for the readers here who may be misled by your various false accusations, I engaged in no “reduction” of the charge. I see integrity as the quality honesty wrought throughout the entire fabric of one’s character. Speaking of the misleading acts you uncovered as merely lying would have been pleading to a lesser crime.
Nevertheless, even in that, I find no pleasure in crowing over the sins I may find in others, because I find greater sins within myself all the time. And so as a matter of policy I strive to speak of those who have sinned, and in particular those who have admitted their sin, in terms of grace and forgiveness. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”
Now I do understand there are some in academia who have inverted this sense and allow themselves to speak of integrity in mere mechanical terms, as simple self-consistency. I consider this degenerative and below the high standards of character as presented by God in Scripture. If your grievance with me on that point is that you think I was using the term in that corrupted sense, then I can fully understand your objection. You would still, however, be wrong. Only it would be an honest mistake, and I would gladly overlook it.
However, I do not think this is the case, because I made clear to you in our private communication my belief that “source integrity” was indeed a form of lying. You therefore knew or should have known before this last statement of yours that I engaged in no such reduction. Indeed, from my point of view, I raised the stakes, as stated above. My only “crime” was that I didn’t copy and paste your exact words. Therefore your accusation is a fabrication.
As for your ongoing policy of deny deny deny, I am not sure why you use it. No one is fooled by it, no more than the innocent child was fooled by the emperor’s non-existent clothing. If it please you to continue on with it, by all means do so. You are making my job as a Protestant apologist easier. Not for reasons I enjoy. It is simply true. You have had abundant opportunity to defend your false accusations against the integrity of Protestant apologists, and you have utterly failed to do so. If that’s where you want to leave it, that’s your call.
And a word to my RC FRiends. Please understand that while I make no claim to be perfect, I do try very hard not to stereotype. As I’ve mentioned to Vlad before, I have Catholic relatives who have done murder to the unborn. But I also understand they are not model Catholics. Likewise, I do not apply the sad lessons of this particular conversation to anyone but the individuals involved.
May God bless you Vlad.
Peace,
SR