Apparently the poster is not used to being confronted with the truth. On his blog, he is now reduced to ranting, ramblings, and trying to discredit the sources that exposed his deception. Those that deal in deception often take this course when exposed and confronted by the truth.Actually, the sources (well, let's be real here: there's only one source, a certain David C. Cloud) discredit themselves. I could launch into any number of criticisms as to why, but the ones that are not form criticisms* basically all amount to the same thing: if you're trying to compose a comprehensive argument against Catholicism that you want to be viewed as a truthful, reasonable analysis, compose your argument from independent sources. If you're going to use an anti-Catholic propagandist to prove an anti-Catholic point, you are not working in the service of truth...you are parroting your pastor and the pamphlets that have been handed out to you, and moreover are demonstrating a failure of critical thinking.
There is an interesting case of projection taking place here. The watcher claims that I am reduced to rambling -- yet he, himself, rarely speaks his own mind save to either offer insult or attempt to maniuplate the emotions of his readers. The watcher claims that I am not used to being confronted with the truth -- and yet he presents no truth save the "truth" of a propagandist, without bothering to do any independent research of his own, or in any other way demonstrate the ability to both think critically and compose his own arguments.
The watcher further claims that "those who deal in deception often take this course" -- and ultimately, the statement is, on his part, self-referential. This is especially true when one considers that the watcher himself, again, rarely offers his own well-researched arguments, preferring to cite the work of others. In spite of this, he will be the first to chastise someone who cites an outside source as being reliant on the "wisdom of men". It's a curious "some for me; none for thee" approach, and again communicates a fundamental insecurity in both his position and beliefs. Evidently, he does not feel that his own capacity for reason is sufficient to the task of arguing with a known deceiver like myself.
It reminds me of a child, caught with their hand in a cookie jar, and the tale upon tale they will fabricate to extricate themselves from the situation, rather than just owning up to the truth.
Life must be "grating", indeed, as the poster expressed on his blog, for one on the wrong side of the truth in an issue.The Reader is welcome to make of this what he or she will -- suffice to say that I've no use for snake oil in my life. At the end of the day, maybe Catholicism gets some things wrong (from a doctrinal standpoint); personally, I've not encountered anything in Catholic teaching that cannot be defended from Scripture, and I've read the Catechism from end to end...twice.
I will say this, though: at the end of the day, I have Jesus. Moreover, I have Jesus in a very special, very intimate and integral, and very personal way. He is, for me, truly present, and on a weekly basis I stand, but for a moment, in the ante-chamber of Heaven itself.
The watcher offers nothing which exceeds this, and as such I'm not interested in what he has on offer. Let him have his "truth" -- I have Christ, and I'm content with that.
If he is reduced to this state by just the few tidbits I have put forth, I pity him, for I have not even "rolled out the good stuff" yet.I tremble in anticipation, O Reader. I do believe the watcher thinks he has got me on the rocks, when in fact all he has done is cite the work of a propagandist who has no problem going against some of the most noted preachers and theologians in American Protestantism, to say nothing of his anti-Catholicism. I am sure that such a source as this has churned out no end of entertaining reading. But then, so has Jack Chick. And just because a source is prolific or verbose does not mean that a source is speaking the truth, or any part thereof. For example: why should I trust a source that refers to the Dark Ages, when the majority of historians actually reject the use of this term because it is inaccurate and does not reflect the actual progression of things during the period of history to which it nominally refers?
Truth is waht it is and I feel that truth should be known regardless of whether that bruises our ego or pride.On this point, I agree with the watcher. I also laugh at the watcher, because he evidently has not been counting the number of times that his own ego has ended up bruised by something I've said...and has acted poorly (and insultingly) as a result. With this statement as well, he is projecting.
But don't take my word for it, O Reader. Simply point out to him that his arguments are almost indistinguishable from those of atheists who likewise seek to undermine the Church, or point out to him that his evidences are sometimes used against Christians by those who would seek to disprove Christ's divinity, and watch how he reacts.
Footnote: if I am just one deceiver mired down in fallacies and rambling incoherently in the face of the truth, the question perhaps has to be raised as to why the watcher is expending so much effort in continuing to give rebuttal to one that he has apparently so soundly defeated? It seems a terrible waste of time on his part.
Perhaps the truth is other? One notes that demons can be quite determined in their efforts.
* * *
* form criticism is usually shallow, but I do sometimes wonder at a curious phenomenon: why is it that all these supposedly great evangelical sources have webpages that are of lower quality than the ones I designed with I was first learning HTML, back in high school?