You remind me of Karl Childers. Of course I do - to Silas, everyone who disagrees with him is Karl Childers.
That's why he's Silas.
Or is it that you're obsessed with me personally? You got a twitch for me, Silas? Because on this very thread, several people have acknowledged the legitimacy of my question - and that's all I did, was ask a question - yet you haven't hound-dogged any of them. But I get your special care, don't I? For me, there is the hatred and the obsession. Why is that, Silas? After all, I didn't call you out - you attacked me personally over my question. It suddenly became very important to you that my question be exposed as the "straw man" I was using to undermine the sanctity of the Church.
Pissed me off, too. I really wasn't in the mood for the descent of malicious insanity - I was in a good mood, a contemplative mood. And then - you showed up.
I think though, in my irritation over you (and that's really all you are, an irritant) I overreacted against the Church. It is, still, in my personal experience, the source of a remarkable number of creatures like you. But it is also the source of many wonderful people in my life, and I will not lump you in with them. They are as far from you as Christ's love and compassion - literally. You know them not. And they are Catholic, and I respect them greatly and their faith as well.
I'm done with you here. As enamored as you are in being a snarling mad dog for the Church, sniffing out devious straw-men that no one else but you can see, I find you nothing more than a waste of time. So goodbye, Silas.
“Of course I do - to Silas, everyone who disagrees with him is Karl Childers. That’s why he’s Silas.”
Except it was not for disagreement that you remind me of him. I’m not surprised you would get it wrong.
“Or is it that you’re obsessed with me personally?”
No, and if I were that would mean there wasn’t much there to be obsessed with.
“You got a twitch for me, Silas?”
No, but you’ve been thinking about this all weekend apparently. If there’s a twitch, it’s all yours.
“Because on this very thread, several people have acknowledged the legitimacy of my question - and that’s all I did, was ask a question - yet you haven’t hound-dogged any of them.”
Again, I posted the answer to your question. I have done it several times. Here it is again: “Jesus was talking about setting a man against his father in His own day and metaphorically later on. He was not discussing what Catherine said. Jesus was talking about faith in Him setting a man against his father. Catherine was talking about a man being obedient to his father because of faith in Christ.”
You keep avoiding it. But there it is.
“But I get your special care, don’t I?”
Nope. I treat every anti-Catholic here the same. Like it or not you don’t get any different treatment than any other.
“For me, there is the hatred and the obsession. Why is that, Silas?”
For me, your apparent imaginings are your obsession. Why do you have them, Karl?
“After all, I didn’t call you out - you attacked me personally over my question.”
Nope. I just stated the truth. There were no personal attacks at all.
“It suddenly became very important to you that my question be exposed as the “straw man” I was using to undermine the sanctity of the Church.”
No. It is no more important than the post of any other anti-Catholic at any other time. You might want to believe you’re special, but you’re not. And you certainly won’t be treated that way by me. Every anti-Catholic gets treated the same.
“Pissed me off, too.”
Started sharpening the mower blade, huh? In other words, I was right all along and what I said hit home? That was obvious from the start.
“I really wasn’t in the mood for the descent of malicious insanity - I was in a good mood, a contemplative mood. And then - you showed up.”
If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t handle the truth, either change your heart so you can or stop pursuing it. Your question was answered. It’s just that simple.
“I think though, in my irritation over you (and that’s really all you are, an irritant) I overreacted against the Church.”
That might be a nice, convenient explanation for what you did, but it hardly seems rational in any case.
“It is, still, in my personal experience, the source of a remarkable number of creatures like you.”
And anti-Catholicism routinely only produces people who not only don’t know the truth, but who can’t handle it and lash out at those who tells it to them.
“But it is also the source of many wonderful people in my life, and I will not lump you in with them.”
Go ahead and don’t. It is irrelevant what you do when you’re working from error in any case.
“They are as far from you as Christ’s love and compassion - literally. You know them not. And they are Catholic, and I respect them greatly and their faith as well.”
Your opinion, grounded in your own error - for we have seen that it is not grounded in truth and you have already talked about being “pissed off” and irritated - is irrelevant.
“I’m done with you here.”
That’s the second time you have said something like that. I think you should stick to your own word then. It might help you.
“As enamored as you are in being a snarling mad dog for the Church, sniffing out devious straw-men that no one else but you can see,”
It’s interesting that you have more than once labeled your own straw man as “devious”. In post #28 I even asked you to show me where I ever said it was “devious”. Of course you failed to do so. I never said it was “devious”. You apparently keep imagining that.
“I find you nothing more than a waste of time.”
And yet you keep posting to me - even after you say you’re done. I have no reason to believe what you say even about your own point of view.
“So goodbye, Silas.”
Keep sharpening that mower blade, Karl. At least something you have then will be sharp.