I'm sorry for interrupting, but am I reading this correctly? You said,
"As to your passages, I am willing to take some time in the coming days to address them if you wish. However, I would like to know, in advance, if you are willing to accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, above all other competing, would be, moral authorities. If you're willing to accept the Bible as the final authority, I'd be pleased to commit my time to addressing these verses. What d'ya say?!"Are you saying what it sounds like in there? That you'd be willing to talk about Catholic ideas on those passages, but ONLY if the other person first says your arguement is the correct one? What would be the point in discussing those passages if the person already says they'll agree with your opinion?
Here is the issue: Much of RCC doctrine relies on extra-biblical writings, so called Church History and/or Tradition. They give lip service to the Scripture, even overtly acknowledging that it is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. However, their words are empty. This is plainly seen throughout this thread. Each time Scripture is put forth to demonstrate God's position on a subject, and His position conflicts with that of the RCC, they ignore it, twist it, take it completely out of context, AND punt the argument to Church Doctrines, claiming its inerrancy on matters of faith.
It is clear that for the RCC, Scripture has no real authority. When it challenges their ideas, it gets set aside.
My point in the post you question is to demonstrate all the above. No one in the RCC can honestly take me up on the offer without watching their man-made doctrines collapse.
In any case, I am out of the discussion. I merely answered your post to provide a courtesy explanation.