Yeah, precision about what we believe.
It is difficult to hit a moving target.
Then maybe it would be best not to shoot at it, or at all? They say you should be sure of your target and of what's behind it. But in this thread ONE "strand" of the Protestant argument appears to go like this:
(1)An allegation is made, and the practice alleged is condemned, often with extensive and numerous excerpts from Scripture and Protestant authors.
(2) In response, we deny the allegation and draw a distinction.
(3)The activity of drawing distinctions is disparaged, and the allegation is repeated, again with extensive and numerous excerpts from Scripture and from Protestant authors. Sometimes there even are what would appear to be vain repetitions of the same excerpts and quotes.
It is as though the very idea of framing the criticism in a way which would lead those crticized to think it applied to them is repulsive. For example, if a Protestant wants to condemn praying to statues, I will agree. But rather than take seriously the question of how I can, while doing what I customarily do, agree with the Protestant in this sort of sequence, s/he just retorts, often as nastily as possible, "I was talking about YOU!"
When I question this, the activity is explained to be "telling the truth in Love." When I consider the numerous factual errors, most of them easily avoidable, I find the claim, at best, dubious.
I could agree with "Yelling the truth", as long as I could reserve judgement on the "in Love" part. And I would say that I am not guiltless of a little yelling now and again.
But I'm not pretending it's meaningful discourse. It's more like an argument among third graders.
Kolo can say the former leaders of my church have done and said terrible things about his Church, but I see no malice. Blogger can hold up his side of the question and point out the hinge points of my side, and I learn from him and feel he is becoming a friend.
But, well, there are a lot of wild shots being discharged seemingly without any serious aiming but with what they all a "spray and pray" approach to gunfire.
All I can see is that the person shooting won't learn anything, will confirm himself or herself in his or her own malice and opinions, and will probably interfere with or discourage any future loving and/or humble conversation about the Lord we all profess to love and whose gracious dispensation we seek to understand. Anybody can have a conversation with people with whom he agrees. Having a useful conversation with people with whom one disagrees, that's an achievement, one which, if the conversation were about our Lord, would make Satan tremble.
/ rant off.