Just might do that. Although I don't believe an open thread would be conductive of a real exchange of ideas. To many partisans.
"That's your opinion. However, the thousands that have visited my site are of a different opinion, and have stated a desire to learn more - asking reasonable and intelligent questions; many are Catholics (CINO or not)."
Don't flatter yourself. Any website will get thousands of hits per year especially if if the right keywords are put into Google's database.
No "flattery" involved, just telling it as it is. I surely don't know what those "hitting" the web site think, but I do know what those who communicated to me in their messages about the articles they read have said. It's not a matter of keywords, etc.
In other words, you started from the position of the Reformation. Would you say that you are more or less on the same road?
I don't know about that for I never looked at their position when I started - didn't care to. I guess you could say that I am (to use Mad Dawg's expression) kinda sorta on a similar road in a strange sort of way. The Bishop we spent over two hours with agreed that we were correct in what we had found, and even told us that we should continue our work to try to change the church's view on them - but he also warned us that there was no guarantee that we or anyone could get the ears of those responsible for what the church teaches. That's the truth!
Any encouragement of deviation from the Church of Jesus the Christ has the same net effect.
I think that could be said about all the denominations of Christianity, including the RCC. That's what "partisan" thinking does! "Dang the truth", they in effect are saying!
Interest.
Well put.
Just might do that. Although I don't believe an open thread would be conductive of a real exchange of ideas. To many partisans.
There is the occasional thread which survives beyond them. I got to know Forest Keeper and Kosta very well on one particular thread. FK is Calvinist SBC and Kosta is Serbian Orthodox.
No "flattery" involved, just telling it as it is. I surely don't know what those "hitting" the web site think, but I do know what those who communicated to me in their messages about the articles they read have said. It's not a matter of keywords, etc.
Thousands of them?
I don't know about that for I never looked at their position when I started - didn't care to. I guess you could say that I am (to use Mad Dawg's expression) kinda sorta on a similar road in a strange sort of way. The Bishop we spent over two hours with agreed that we were correct in what we had found, and even told us that we should continue our work to try to change the church's view on them - but he also warned us that there was no guarantee that we or anyone could get the ears of those responsible for what the church teaches. That's the truth!
I generally look askance at those who wide-eyed claim to be speaking the truth. Emotional claims are not the same as logical and rational argument backed up by facts and data.
I think that could be said about all the denominations of Christianity, including the RCC. That's what "partisan" thinking does! "Dang the truth", they in effect are saying!
Do you mean the Raving Calvinist Club? I thought that you said that you were not Calvinist. I don't get that from your site.