I made a comment in my previous post that, in part, read:

Which, I think, goes to a larger phenomenon that I plan to write on a bit later: I think many fundamentalists, especially those of the watcher's sort, actually think of Christ as being rather...weak. When they see in history that Constantine converted, they assume that he began to creep pagan influence into the Church. They don't believe, I don't think, Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church on Earth, and don't understand that maybe...just maybe...it was Christianity that began to creep into, and undermine, paganism.

Harry Potter is another easy example. They prefer to believe that reading the books might just imperil your soul and tempt you into performing witchcraft. They don't believe Jesus is powerful enough to have transformed what was otherwise a work of ordinary fantasy into a rather lovely affirmation of the Christian message, by exerting His will upon the Christian faith of J. K. Rowling. I've read the series, and while Rowling is no Lewis or Tolkien, the Christian inspiration in the plot she has crafted is unmistakeable.

Fear. That's all it comes down to. Fear of the devil and fear that Jesus is too weak to prevail.

Now, let's quickly analyze what I did. I made a short statement of thesis (that some fundamentalists seem to believe in a very weak Christ indeed) and followed it up with two examples, expanding my thesis into a reasoned point.

To which the watcher, in essence, responded "We don't do that; you Catholics do that."

Or: "I know you are, but what am I?"

To which I can only remark: I guess the debate, if ever it had begun, is more or less ended, seeing as how it has now become a case of mere juvenile gainsaying. It's quite disappointing, but I suppose that some of my Readers would agree that it was a predictable outcome.

Time to move on to other topics.

Update: Ah, but I'm a sucker sometimes. The watcher crows loudly:

The Roman Catholic poster, rather than show on his blog my points about the finished work of Christ, and how the Roman Church doctrine denies the finished work of Christ, has decided to just avoid the issue and like Pee Wee Herman, use a childish statement to dodge discussing those unbiblical doctrines.

The watcher projects again; the childish statement was his, initially. Personally, I'm not of a mind to engage in mere gainsaying, and I observe two things about the overall content of the watcher's penultimate post in our exchange: where we agree, there is no need for me to respond. Where we disagree, his reasoning is nonexistent, and there is nothing to respond to; only his initial statements and a small quantity of Scripture verses vomited out with no accompanying exegesis or framing context.

I don't blame him, they are undefendable from a Biblical standpoint, as are many of the Roman Church's doctrines that are built on the vain philsophies and traditions of man rather than the Word of God.

My lack of rebuttal to the watcher's previous points stems from what I note above, and also from the fact that I do not see the point in fighting those who are less well-armed than myself. I apply that philosophy to intellectual discourse as well as to real life, mind.

As has been previously stated, I've read the Catechism in its entirety...twice. To date, I have found no doctrine within its pages that is not Biblically defensible. The watcher has had ample opportunity to select, either at random or as an outcome of concentrated study, any passage in the Catechism that he feels is Biblically indefensible. The full text of the Catechism is even available online to facilitate his doing so.

I therefore directly challenge the watcher to browse through the Catechism, without using any exterior writer or source to do his thinking for him. Let him directly, by his own hand and with his own eyes, select, either at random or by dedicated study, a passage within the Catechism that directly contravenes, or is utterly indefensible from, Scripture.

If he can find such a passage, I may just renounce the Church on the spot. But he himself must find such a passage, and while I doubt that he has the necessary strength in faith or courage of conviction to embark on such an undertaking, I will observe that in two complete readings of the Catechetical text, I've not once found something unbiblical or indefensible from the pages of the Bible.

It is no wonder that the Roman Catholic blogger tries to discredit the Bible and Christians who believe what God has told us in it, His inerrant, inspired, and preserved Word.

It is not my intent to denigrate or discredit my fellow Christians, although I've no problem shooting holes in the occasional propagandist. But I do that for secular propagandists too, so at least it can be said that I mete things out fairly in that regard. Conversely, the watcher actively denigrates his fellow Christians, making their religious denomination a key part of his objections and rebuttals to them.

It is also not my intent to discredit the Bible; indeed, it is my desire to vindicate Scripture and affirm its truth as God's inerrant, inspired, and preserved Word. Of course, to the watcher's mind, it is impossible that I could make and keep this commitment, since I reject his "King James only" viewpoint. And so I do. But then, that is because I do not believe that the translators who worked on the KJV were infallible, as the watcher necessarily must do so as to hold his believe that the KJV alone is inerrant, above all other translations of Scripture.

I put my faith in the inerrance of Scripture, but not the inerrancy of English scholars, Tyndale, or Wycliff. The watcher might do well to learn the difference.

And, of course, my challenge to him (above) stands. Although he will probably refuse. ;)

P.S. the watcher might do well to consider that his latest post's title should read "Some things" rather than "Somethings"...

Update: the watcher objectes to my above form criticism, and takes it as a sign that I've nothing better to say against him than to mention a typo.

Evidently, the watcher only read the last line of my post. ;)

Also, as predicted, a refusal:

In regards to his suggestion to read the Catholic propaganda, called a Catechism, been there done that as well as numerous Roman Church encyclicals, councils, etc. and extensive papal and Church history. The exploits found in papal history alone is enough to make one sick. He keeps ranting about unbiased sources and his sources are straight from the Roman Churches mouth. That is what he calls unbiased in the bizarro, parallel universe in which he obviously resides.

The Roman Catholic Church may have been successful for years in covering up the, shall we say, the extracurricular and ungodly exploits of countless priests with innocent children, but try as they may, they have not burned enough people at the stake to erase the shall we say, the colorful history, of the Roman Cathoilc Church. I encourage everyone to study it for themselves, but be forewarned, have one of those little air sickness bags they give you on an airplane, you will probably need it.

Note the claim of extensive immersion in encyclicals, councils, the Catechism, and so forth? And yet, in all of that, the watcher is unable in the span of two paragraphs to mention a single example. He has not met my challenge, for he cannot. He has only bluster, not actual fact. He is afraid to be shown up as a fool.

But in the spirit of ecumenism, my challenge remains open. The watcher is free, either on this blog's comment form or on his own blog, to cite any number of Catechetical paragraphs that he feels are Biblically indefensible. As stated previously, I might even be willing to renounce the Church if an anti-biblical statement of sufficient gravity can be found within the Catechism. Surely the watcher cares about the mortal soul and conversion of heart of another?

One passage. One time. His place or mine. He has made the sweeping charge that Catholicism is anti-biblical. Let him now prove it, not by citing a propagandist, but by citing Catholic doctrine directly, ripped from the Catechism. One passage. One time. His place or mine.

(Note also the use, again, of emotional manipulation. The watcher would probably be distressed to know that non-Catholic Christian pastors are, statistically speaking, at least twice as likely to abuse children sexually. I don't say that to lessen the gravity of the sins of some priests, but I do say it to observe, by way of saying it, that the watcher is again attempting emotional manipulation of his readers.)

Not that one expects much from one with so many fears about him.