OK, well finally we get to a point that seems halfway decent. Not without a sense of irony I'm going to direct the conversation toward another goal because down the "specifically" path is "he said/she said" and analysis of the perceptions of a 12 year old. The only thing I will address further in that area is that although at the time I had the intuition that the Dobson psychology was the problem it wasn't until a decade after my initial exposure to the book that someone was able to put it into words and help me understand exactly what the problem was. It's been 21 since then and the only lingering after effect is that I shout a lot whenever anyone brings up Dobson and I tend not to keep it at the front of my mind. Otherwise I'd think about it, shout, think about it shout, think about it, shout. etc. When I say "shout" I am exaggerating for effect btw. What's the point of dwelling on unpleasant episodes, unless it's Civil War reenactment or something.
Now that the digression is out of the way there are two points I actually want to address:
1) I knew what I intended to convey when I wrote the earlier post, you did not get out of it what I intended and focused on one part of the overall post to the exclusion of the primary point. Acknowledging that people are allowed to do that, I want to point out that it's remarkably similar to the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Without comparing myself to the Divine Author of Sacred Scripture or my typing to His Word I still think it's important to consider that if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.
By way of example, I do not believe that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man and that God is a Trinity because of what I read in the Bible, I believe those doctrines because the Church tells me in a variety of ways that I should believe and understand Sacred Scripture in light of those doctrines. If left to my own interpretations I would not arrive at those beliefs by relying upon Scripture alone. So Catholics are told to reject X doctrine of the Catholic Church based exclusively on the interpretation of someone claiming to be a Bible Christian but to retain other doctrines of the Catholic Church. All at the behest of people who can't be bothered to actually pay attention to what I'm writing, it doesn't lend a reasonable degree of trust to their ability to interpret scripture.
Which brings me to point 2. People say "you get more flies with honey than with vinegar" and I ask "who wants a bunch of flies?" Nevertheless how are people supposed to effectively communicate even their own personal interpretation of the Gospel when they act like spoiled fruit? Who walks into a restaurant, sees someone gagging and spitting over a bowl of soup and says "I'll have what she's having"? Did Our Lord truly say "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you act like complete dorks to all and sundry"?
There are two normal rebuttals: a) if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and b) Catholics do it too.
Yes, Catholics do it too, to their (and my, especially when I do it) shame. "She kicked me first" is not a valid excuse even for a 4 year old, at least not my 4 year old.
As for the hot kitchen, what good is it doing for anyone? No bread is being baked here, no mushrooms sautéd. No matter the intent of this kind of behaviour, the result is to drive people away and/or just shut them up. Now... if a process results in unintended consequences often enough then the process is at fault, if the consequences are the intended result of the process then the operator is responsible.
The accepted standard of conduct and behaviour of people on the internet is beneath the dignity of rational creatures of God. I mentioned another website in an earlier post, on the whole it is populated by liberal atheists (they are at least the most vocal participants), other than the specific subject matter I would be hard pressed to discern the difference between the conversations there and the conversations here. So what's the point of Christ if His loyal disciples are indistinguishable from those who wallow in the spiritual decadence of this world?
DR.E: What was it specifically that scarred you in Dobson's book, "Preparing for Adolescence?"
But nowhere in your lengthy, nine-paragraph response is there any semblance of an answer.
Instead, you compare some of us to "decadent atheists" and say things like...
if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.
Which is just about the most arrogant, short-sighted statement I have ever read on this forum.
And I've read a LOT of sentences.
By making that statement, whether you want to give that impression or not, you seem to be saying your comments are as clear and weighty as Scripture. And that anyone who says they understand the word of God should at least be able to understand your remarks.
However, we're in the middle of a discussion that proves that opinion false. In several posts you've talked about how Dobson's book scarred you, but you have not yet told us HOW.
Not without a sense of irony I'm going to direct the conversation toward another goal
Why not wait to direct the conversation toward another goal until we accomplish the first goal? You've already acknowledged my question as a "halfway decent point," but you haven't answered it.
What was it specifically that scarred you in Dobson's book, "Preparing for Adolescence?"