Replies

Exhibit B: WVKayaker (who apparently thinks I, and other Catholics, are vampires. Is he part of your use of we ?

SR why bother with someone who has no indication of even reading, much less reveals an understanding of what you write. AFV may be the last person to deny blind obedience to his error-filled religion.

Of course, I know you are not writing for that poster's benefit, but are making loud the Gospel of Christ, which brings men (and women) to the foot of the cross!

To many Roman Catholics, the Word of God is more like garlic to a vampire! Yet, it reveals utter sinfulness and need for the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.

chutzpa

1. unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall.
2. audacity; nerve.

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?

Merchant of Venice
Act 3, Scene 1,
William Shalespeare

Exhibit B: WVKayaker (who apparently thinks I, and other Catholics, are vampires. Is he part of your use of we ?

Thank you for proving my point. I never said what you stated. At least you included a complete quote of my text, but you failed once again to READ it. You latched onto one word and made the spurious claim that I said something that I clearly DID NOT SAY! A simile is all I used. It followed a post from a Roman Catholic cultist that intimated that I was a vampire.

It is one thing to make a statement. It is another to tell a lie. I will leave it to the readers to determine the veracity of our posts...

Yes, you do seem Clintonian! They excel in slicing, dicing, and lying!...

Is ... is!!!

AF, what you and WVK say between each other is between the two of you. I do not intend to be drawn into highly personal “us versus them” tangles, on several grounds:

1. As a matter of Christian principle, I oppose division among brethren, especially in the family of Christ. When a person uses a vivid analogy like that, the charitable thing to do is to look at the central meaning and understand what is being said, not to assume the worst.

2. I believe these complicated “us versus them” tangles are so inherently personal they violate forum rules, even when that is not the intent. To me it represents a degenerative stage of a conversation, where the large ideas are lost in the scuffle to attack and defend the individual participants. It throws reason to the wind, and fosters foment rather than peace. I believe the forum rule that prohibits going personal is an excellent bit of guidance and I intend to follow it to the letter.

3. Tactically, this is like the moderators at the CNBC GOP debate trying to set each of the candidates against each other. It is a divide and conquer strategy, and no one with any sense will get caught up in it.

4. It serves no purpose in any effort to compare and contrast Roman versus evangelical claims of unity. Catholics have a semblance of formal unity. Evangelicals have substantive unity. But neither all Catholics nor all evangelicals are cookie cutter people. A person may well be my brother and do and say things differently than I would, and visa versa. That is not a valid critique of our unity. It’s just people being real. If you have an issue with someone’s analogies, take that up with them. Leave me out of it.

5. Back to unity for a moment. I just came from the Lord’s Supper this morning. There is no symbol more profound of our unity in Christ that our remembrance together of what He has done for us. Christ died for every one of His beloved children. How can I come from such a blessed moment of treasuring my unity with my brothers and sisters in Christ, only to come back here and submit to an interrogation that, to me, looks like an attempt to divide us? We are going to have our differences, but yes, in Christ, it is “we” for us. May God heal our infirmities.

Peace,