No FR screen name mentioned, ergo no need to ping. I suppose I could ping a blank “to:” field to appease those who are perpetually seeking offense. Would that keep the screeching harpies at bay? If so, I’ll reconsider, even though it’s just about as functional as pinging “all.”
Speaking of thin-skinned, who comes screeching onto a thread demanding someone be pinged when there is no screen name in evidence, lol? It’s novel. It’s amusing. Doesn’t make much logical sense, though, not even to a legalist, so I’m baffled.
I note you don’t address the very noticable Biblical illiteracy among Catholics as a whole. Really, wouldn’t it be much easier to just crack a Bible, or is that a problem? The Gideons can help. It’s going to be KJV though. Quite a lovely, poetic, almost Shakespearean translation, in the opinion of most of the English speaking world.
I also note that you don’t address the ongoing derision of Prostestants as “Paulicians.” I take that you don’t contest this. It would be difficult to contest if you tried.
Since they were all antiCatholic, perhaps we should consider it.
The Gideons can help. It’s going to be KJV though. Quite a lovely, poetic, almost Shakespearean translation, in the opinion of most of the English speaking world.
Don't forget to strap that gay on.
You didn’t ping Judith Anne because you didn’t mention her. BUT you said CATHOLICS said Paul was crazy. The reality is that if you were on the thread in question you would have known that it was Judith Anne and Judith Anne only who took issue with Paul.
Perhaps you were on the original thread, I don’t know. You may have just been repeating the mischaracterization about Catholics (plural) opinion of Paul. So perhaps you’re only guilty of repeating an untruth told by a virulent anti-Catholic poster here.
So now that we’re clear here perhaps you can clarify your postion. We’re you on the original thread in question? Or did you just repeat someone’s accusation about what Catholics feel about Paul?
It could be an honest mistake on your part.
I find the rest of your post and accusations baffling. I pointed out an error you made. You make no mention of your error. You try and tell me all the nasty thing Catholics have said. Is your point 2 wrongs make a right?? Can you acknowledge you were in error saying Catholics (plural) said Paul was crazy? Your other issues about things Catholics have said that you find hurtful are a red herring to why I addressed you in the first place.
As for your comments about Catholics being “unbiblical” etc., those are your OPINIONS. As for your question about “Paulicians”, that’s a far, far, far cry from Catholics calling Paul crazy. That’s more of a theological debate between Catholics and some Protestants as to how much weight is put into Paul’s writings as opposed to other writers. Again, a red herring and nothing to do with what I initially asked you about, your mischaracterization that you have seen CATHOLICS (plural) call Paul crazy. Which by the way would be impossible because we’ve established only one poster went that far, so you can’t attest to seeing something posted here that never happened.
So, I’ll ask you again.
Were you repeating someone else untruth about Catholics calling Paul crazy?
Or
We’re you on the original thread where you knew it was one person’s opinion and figured you could use that persons opinion and try to insinuate that that was what “Catholics” believe as a dagger to damage Catholics and the Catholic Church?