Replies

Not the "Rome" part. I said something about the prosecutorial attitude of many Protestants indeed, and in fact I was agreeing with you on that score.

No, [again, as I have already shown you] you said Protestantism always seeks to destroy something. in response to myself lamenting the need to write like a prosecuting attorney, which I must do to nail down what is spoken about, instead of having it always be subtly shifting around, as you demonstrate (and I again figuratively underline) even here.

Did I quote Daniel incorrectly?

Just previously I touched upon the how's and apparent why your methodology of snipping out sentence fragment to which you then form reply, providing some brief example there for demonstration, showing how you conceptually switch positions while employing rhetorical defense -- and a well studied avoidance shall we say, of questions posed to yourself, even while yourself posturing as providing answers to the more pointed, lawyer-like interrogatories.

That this sort of subtle misrepresentation of ---just who said-- what --- comes amid your own avoidance of particular issues, even as to your own self saying one thing -- then another, changing your own story as you go along, circles us right back to the reason for my own originally expressed lament.

You don't like my habits, post to someone else.

If I can't get you to 'face the facts' as the saying goes, then perhaps I can assist in not allowing your own "habits" to obscure important considerations ("facts", as it were) which as it appears to me, are being subtly and cunningly shielded from more direct examination.

If you don't like be written to in manner reminiscent of a prosecuting attorney, something's got to give, and I cannot allow for it to be me, though I do wish it could be...

Nothing personal. Just my own being after the "business" of Our Father in heaven ---which Rome has now long distorted, and *some* (but not all) of who's apologists continue the distortion, by any means possible.

It is interesting that on this thread entitled Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol your entree to this thread came about by way of yourself bringing image of a man behind a curtain, and how your own posting Protocol (on open threads) is so, shall we say -- instructive.

Thank you for the performances. For those with eyes to see it, it all becomes --- in believe it or not -- condensed form, difficult as it can be to keep track of all the various twists and turns the conversations take, illuminative of reasons why such a title came to be applied, including considerations in regards to what has been termed the perspicuity of scripture, and we are not even yet to a thousand replies in number, on this thread...

Should we all laugh -- or cry, depends upon one's own place(s) of perspective, with those natural arising responses from within a soul reading through this thread, seeming too as fluid as your own support, first for a this, then for a something subtly other, then back towards that which was just backed off from, to once again include the same that, while seemingly also seeking to blame it all on someone else, namely -- those protestants, and now " those mariophobic bastards" as you termed it, since the Greek Texts do not fully (pun intended) support how the Latin (NT) texts were worded.