[Resettozero]

R2z: Never asked you that in any post. Deceptive of you and deflective.

JPX: Of course you didn't. You merely asked:

R2z (from a post a day or two ago, not the post in question): Approaching blasphemy, some gobbledegook, and a personal slur. How deep can a man's arrogance reach?

JPX:Hyperbole comes in many forms. Even when the practitioner doesn't realize it. The rest of your questions were answered.

No, your responses do not constitue answers. I believe you are not capable of being straightforward with me and others in an honest exchange of ideas on these matters. Your idea of who the Church founded by Jesus Christ is does not match mine and you refuse to speak the same vernacular I do to be able to pinpoint the differences to each other.

Finally, you reveal that my assessment from a previous FR discussion from the past hit the target and you still carry the sting of it. In the end, that may be a good thing for you.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

See what happens when someone ignores His call?

[JPX2011]

No, your responses do not constitue answers. I believe you are not capable of being straightforward with me and others in an honest exchange of ideas on these matters.

Why? Because you say so? You find yourself unsatisfied and therefore that's my fault and so now you can proclaim that I'm being evasive and deceptive? You know I've had discussions here on the RF with protestants who asked genuine non pre-loaded questions and they've received similar responses in kind. If you want an honest dialogue about these issues then may I suggest that your questions not be front-loaded with Catholic rejection.

You may not realize this but most questions put to Catholics by protestants, especially on the RF, are chock full of anti-Catholic bias, and/or designed for the "gotcha" moment, etc. that they require a fair amount of deconstruction before they can be answered with the level of intellectual honesty you're looking for.

I've said before that although the RF prohibits the "reading of minds" that doesn't mean such analysis does not takes place and most Catholics, using whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them can intuit when a protestant is genuinely seeking a 'meeting of the minds' or has a genuine question.

Your idea of who the Church founded by Jesus Christ is does not match mine and you refuse to speak the same vernacular I do to be able to pinpoint the differences to each other.

We do not speak the same vernacular because we don't come from the same theological/philosophical traditions. There is a lot of truth to the notion that Protestantism is modern in its thinking. When you couple that with modern, secular philosophical thinking all of a sudden you have ancient ideas and practices that don't comport with the modern understanding of things. Which is why things like honor and venerate are translated into worship, etc. So unless a protestant is willing to conform their mind to a pre-Enlightenment way of thinking we'll always end up speaking past one another.

Finally, you reveal that my assessment from a previous FR discussion from the past hit the target and you still carry the sting of it. In the end, that may be a good thing for you.

As far as I can tell this is all part of the same discussion, same thread etc. I wasn't aware of previous discussion between you and I. By your own admission it was a post from you within the past 48 hours. Hence what I said earlier about modern understanding of things. Or in some cases, post-modern. But if you want to claim some sort of victory that is your perogative.