G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
To sum up, let’s review your charming and charitable language you claim to have from past posts in this thread:
post 21 your first post: You use “” quotations on Anglicans which is always a sign of sarcasm or a doubt of legitimacy in a forum. You say “”" on membership in an Anglican bible study to denote that it’s lunacy
in post 26 you used no sarcasm. That one was actually not bad. But you invented a non-existent word “variously” which was kind of cute
In post 29 you say 'Catholics do not “learn” (again with the quotation marks) to show that there’s nothing a Protestant could ever do to teach a Catholic. As a Catholic and when I was a Protestant, I always learned a lot from both sides. I feel that I always have room to learn. We learn from everyone?
In post 33 you tell Triune that he is “clearly lacking in understanding” when the guy is clearly a bright, learned, and insightful person with great Biblical depth. Disagreement need not lead to the assumption of stupidity and ignorance toward one’s opponent, right?
In post 40 you make the assumption that anyone who interprets the Scriptures at all somehow appoints themselves “leader” over the Church. An interesting conclusion?
In post 41 you make the strange assertion that Triune is mocking Jesus Christ Himself because he felt that Catholics overuse Matthew 16:18. Again, that’s a stretch…
In post 45 you tell Triune: “Re-read Post # 33. OK - guess you NEED to have it repeated” using caps to be sarcastic and imply he has attention deficit syndrome or is deaf?
In post 49 you start it this way with Triune: “OK, pal.” In my experience, “Ok pal!” is never a real good ice-breaker for civil discourse
You end it with “NOT rocket science. Simple logic” which is pretty sarcastic and cliche
In post 50 you were charming to me as usual ending your post with “Study up” implying I am far beneath your vast knowledge and need to bone up. Nice.
In post 52 you speak of Triune saying this: “I have the distinct impression that he does NOT WANT to understand my words. That is, IMO, his loss, not mine.” That makes no sense? In what way could not understanding your own words be a loss to yourself? Think about that one? I could see the “that’s his loss!” statement. But a loss to yourself? huh?
And why you tell me Triune is my “friend” (again with those pesky quotations) with “”" to denote he’s somehow not really my friend? LOL
In post 58 you speak all out inaccuracy. The Anglican ‘practice’ (by that I assume you mean theology and liturgy?) did not start with Henry VIII. Under Henry the Church of England was basically Catholicism without the pope. Still in Latin, still seven sacraments, still holy water, still rosaries and marian devotion, still the whole nine yards. It was under Edward VI and Elizabeth that the more Protestant aspects and guys like Cranmer, Andrewes, Hooker and company threw in their two cents to move things in the direction you assert
In post 59 you snidely say to Triune: “Do you ABSORB new data???” implying he’s a moron again and you’re trying to educate this poor, pitiful guy who doesn’t have a clue.
In post 60 you said you’d “depart from this thread” only to return again?
In post 90 you were sweet as pie, charitable, kind, and a true Catholic. Love that post!
In post 125 you were equally kind, charitable, and a truly great example of a Catholic!
In post 173 you make the most outrageous speculation and assertion of all—that people trying to get to the truth of the Biblical matter, who might have a different point of view than you are “attacking Jesus Himself.” Three letter word for that–WOW…
In post 183 again with those quotes “study” the bible with Protestants. As if the Bible cannot be studied?
In post 189 you tell non-servium “sorry if that upsets you” assuming it would?
The rest continue the same rhetoric…
I mean this
post 21 your first post: You use “” quotations on Anglicans which is always a sign of sarcasm or a doubt of legitimacy in a forum. You say “”" on membership in an Anglican bible study to denote that it’s lunacy
in post 26 you used no sarcasm. That one was actually not bad. But you invented a non-existent word “variously” which was kind of cute
In post 29 you say 'Catholics do not “learn” (again with the quotation marks) to show that there’s nothing a Protestant could ever do to teach a Catholic. As a Catholic and when I was a Protestant, I always learned a lot from both sides. I feel that I always have room to learn. We learn from everyone?
In post 33 you tell Triune that he is “clearly lacking in understanding” when the guy is clearly a bright, learned, and insightful person with great Biblical depth. Disagreement need not lead to the assumption of stupidity and ignorance toward one’s opponent, right?
In post 40 you make the assumption that anyone who interprets the Scriptures at all somehow appoints themselves “leader” over the Church. An interesting conclusion?
In post 41 you make the strange assertion that Triune is mocking Jesus Christ Himself because he felt that Catholics overuse Matthew 16:18. Again, that’s a stretch…
In post 45 you tell Triune: “Re-read Post # 33. OK - guess you NEED to have it repeated” using caps to be sarcastic and imply he has attention deficit syndrome or is deaf?
In post 49 you start it this way with Triune: “OK, pal.” In my experience, “Ok pal!” is never a real good ice-breaker for civil discourse
You end it with “NOT rocket science. Simple logic” which is pretty sarcastic and clicheIn post 50 you were charming to me as usual ending your post with “Study up” implying I am far beneath your vast knowledge and need to bone up. Nice.
In post 52 you speak of Triune saying this: “I have the distinct impression that he does NOT WANT to understand my words. That is, IMO, his loss, not mine.” That makes no sense? In what way could not understanding your own words be a loss to yourself? Think about that one? I could see the “that’s his loss!” statement. But a loss to yourself? huh?
And why you tell me Triune is my “friend” (again with those pesky quotations) with “”" to denote he’s somehow not really my friend? LOL
In post 58 you speak all out inaccuracy. The Anglican ‘practice’ (by that I assume you mean theology and liturgy?) did not start with Henry VIII. Under Henry the Church of England was basically Catholicism without the pope. Still in Latin, still seven sacraments, still holy water, still rosaries and marian devotion, still the whole nine yards. It was under Edward VI and Elizabeth that the more Protestant aspects and guys like Cranmer, Andrewes, Hooker and company threw in their two cents to move things in the direction you assert
In post 59 you snidely say to Triune: “Do you ABSORB new data???” implying he’s a moron again and you’re trying to educate this poor, pitiful guy who doesn’t have a clue.
In post 60 you said you’d “depart from this thread” only to return again?
In post 90 you were sweet as pie, charitable, kind, and a true Catholic. Love that post!
In post 125 you were equally kind, charitable, and a truly great example of a Catholic!
In post 173 you make the most outrageous speculation and assertion of all—that people trying to get to the truth of the Biblical matter, who might have a different point of view than you are “attacking Jesus Himself.” Three letter word for that–WOW…
In post 183 again with those quotes “study” the bible with Protestants. As if the Bible cannot be studied?
In post 189 you tell non-servium “sorry if that upsets you” assuming it would?
The rest continue the same rhetoric…
I mean this
I’m a “hostile stranger?” LOL…I have almost 3,000 posts in CAF since 2007 and just about everybody knows me in here. Stranger? I’m a stranger? That’s a new one!