Replies

......"my view that a thoughtful Catholic reads Scripture more deeply, more comprehensively, and maybe even more comprehending than a thoughtful Protestant."

Well your statement alone is enough for anyone to get ignored.... Arrogance of this degree generally is ignored and not taken seriously.

Let me quote just from this one post of yours here... might help you see the problem:

"Here I am"

"I am not"

"I take"

"I find"

"Not me"

"My arguements"

"I note"

"I get"

"My arguement"

"I engage"

"I was"

"I go"

"I have"

....perhaps you might avoid the I-Me-My syndrome. I addressed your post in the first paragraph with explanation in hopes you might be more understanding of those whose approach is different than others. Your response was all about you and a sort of winney flavor to it and this after you mistakenly qualified yourself above others. Doesn't exactly win friends and influence people.

So, you consider reference to the arguments I advance as somehow about me? I call it taking responsibility — a thing with which your side may be unfamiliar, given, as they are, to justifying vicious, spiteful, abusive, and perseverative insult and slander by appealing to some purported divine call to promulgate division?

You consider my retort to the virtually unceasing slander that we do not read Scripture or give it its proper place somehow offensive? That is, in your view it is perfectly appropriate for anti-Catholics to say that we place tradition above Scripture but NOT appropriate for us to reply that it is not so, but on the contrary we, in our opinion, read scripture ,well, all the ways I said. Is it your contention and your criticism of me based on the idea that it’s okay to attack us, but it is not okay for us to counter attack?

You made, or attempted to make, a point criticizing YOUR (mis)understanding of my point. When I respond, you take the sententiousness up a notch, call me, “winney” and accuse ME of being too focussed on myself while you attempt to justify your side’s defense of incivility on the grounds that, despite ample Scriptural evidence suggesting that Paul would repudiate their approach, they persistently claim the same threadbare Scriptural justification.

Actually, I despise this kind of rhetoric. But when I am castigated for being self-absorbed for expressing my opinion of the arguments of those who have no hesitation about expressing their disagreement with me in the most offensive terms, sometimes it seems right to hold up the mirror for a bit.

I logged on just now, with the intention of apologizing for being cantankerous and ill-tempered. But I see that, once again, having the gumption to respond to the argments of anti-Catholics with arguments of my own is held against me, as though my duty were to bow to the abuse and to take my beating. So I guess I’m glad your post preceded my apology.

But I still think I was bad tempered and I still think I was wrong to be so.

I disagree with your opinion of Mad Dawg's comment.

I find it refreshing,he is not afraid to say "this is what I see,believe,think" rather than hiding behind the phony and hypocritical amorphous blob identifications of both the accusers and the accused commonly observed in so many of these back and forths.

I would find it patronizing except it's rather pathetic. But as so many people have noted on numerous threads "different strokes for different folks",or something close.