[DallasMike]

No, apparently you hit the "abuse" button, and now desire to gloat over my short suspension.

I didn't do it either. I was actually beginning to like you as the evening wore on last night. We disagree on much but you're a sharper tack than most here, both Protestant and Catholic.

Getting back to the subject, the pope's comments were scary. A close read clearly shows that what he wants is a stronger UN or a replacement body to keep the US from defending itself. I would gladly slam Billy Graham if he were foolish enough to have said the same thing.

Though I admire PJII for several things, he is far too fond of Islamic extremists and I don't trust him on this issue.

[Polycarp IV]

I was actually beginning to like you as the evening wore on last night. We disagree on much but you're a sharper tack than most here, both Protestant and Catholic.

Thanks Mike, the feeling is mutual. You actually took a unique apologetics tack here, one I hadn't seen played before, regarding infallably defined scriptures. Its rare indeed to see something new in these old debates. Well met. I'll get back to you on that (if I don't get booted first.)

Getting back to the subject, the pope's comments were scary.

Not if you understand his remarks as those of a man 100% committed to Christ and Christ's smallest and most defenseless. Call it naive? That's OK by me. We're all fools for Christ if we put Him before all else. Call it a power grab or attempt to get back at the USA? Only a fool with no understandiong whatsoever of the Pope, or worse yet, a fool with an anti-Catholic agenda, would make such an assinine mistake.

A close read clearly shows that what he wants is a stronger UN or a replacement body to keep the US from defending itself.

A close read reveals neither. A close read reveals exactly that which I just outlined above.