Apologetics may be simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith. The word "apologetics" derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used as a speech of defense.

Why do Catholics reference Scripture at all?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why do Catholics reference Scripture at all?

    Anyone else intrigued? Catholics love to argue against Sola Scriptura, but can they provide any basis for Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition? Think about it, now watch them turn to Scripture, but why?

    Thankfully, Protestants have Scripture written in a language which can be understood. Isn't it equally amusing to witness Catholics utilize this very same source but for different reasons? What I find rather interesting is listening to Catholic arguments which always tend to undermine the authority of Scripture while self referencing as equal in authority and power.

    Matthew 15:3-6
    • Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
    • 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
    • 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
    • 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
    • 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a]
    • 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word[b] of God.


    God bless,
    William

  • #2
    Originally posted by William View Post
    Catholics love to argue against Sola Scriptura
    I assume you have a specific encounter in mind,
    I am not an expert, but I am pretty sure it is the "Sola" that they are taking exception with and not the "Scriptura".

    It is the JW who keep telling me that we have all mistranslated the "Scriptura". ;)

    (Although I disagree with none of what you wrote. It is what prevented me from joining the Catholic Church as a matter of conscience. I could not accept 'tradition' as co-authoritative with scripture without some irrefutable justification.)
    Comment>

    • #3
      No specific encounter, but just a generalization made, atpollard.

      Was just reading Calvin's commentary on Matthew 15:3 a moment ago. Before I paste it I just wanted to bring something to light. For those not familiar with Martin Luther or John Calvin, often people react rather negatively towards the "rough" language by these men, especially towards the papist. I just began reading a book on Martin Luther to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation this October 31st of 2017. A point that was made is often these men are taken out of historical context, for we do not hear the comments, the uncivil language used to address these men. Another words, a clashing cymbal was heard, and this is how men like Luther and Calvin responded. These men were, frankly, men, unlike our soft millennials today. And they had enough conviction to walk across the street to kick "that dead dog".

      Let any man now consider whether this wickedness does not at present abound more among the Papists than it formerly did among the Jews. It is not indeed denied by the Pope, or by the whole of his filthy clergy, that we ought to obey God; but when we come to the point, we find that they consider the act of eating a morsel of flesh as nothing less than a capital crime, while theft or fornication is regarded as a venial fault, and thus, on account of their traditions, they overturn the Law of God; for it is utterly insufferable that the enactments of men shall withdraw any part of that obedience which is due to God alone. Besides, the honor which God commands to be yielded to parents extends to all the duties of filial piety. (400) The latter clause which Christ adds, that he who curseth father or mother deserves to be put to death, is intended to inform us, that it is no light or unimportant precept to honor parents, since the violation of it is so severely punished. And this is no small aggravation of the guilt of the scribes, that so severe a threatening does not terrify them from granting an extension of liberty to those who despised their parents.
      Clearly, Calvin saw that the Catholics were usurping authority. Interesting how the Scribes equated the law about honoring thy parents to exactness with regard to these "traditionalist".

      I thought Calvin was rather easy on the pope and "his filthy clergy" in the above writing. First writing I ever read from Calvin was on God's sovereignty and he made several references to "that dead dog". Throughout the entire multi page writing I was curious as to exactly who that dead dog was. Turns out another had mentioned Calvin in his book, but Calvin would not address and give enough respect and credit to the man to mention him by name.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by William View Post
        No specific encounter, but just a generalization made, atpollard.

        Was just reading Calvin's commentary on Matthew 15:3 a moment ago. Before I paste it I just wanted to bring something to light. For those not familiar with Martin Luther or John Calvin, often people react rather negatively towards the "rough" language by these men, especially towards the papist. I just began reading a book on Martin Luther to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation this October 31st of 2017. A point that was made is often these men are taken out of historical context, for we do not hear the comments, the uncivil language used to address these men. Another words, a clashing cymbal was heard, and this is how men like Luther and Calvin responded. These men were, frankly, men, unlike our soft millennials today. And they had enough conviction to walk across the street to kick "that dead dog".



        I thought Calvin was rather easy on the pope and "his filthy clergy" in the above writing. First writing I ever read from Calvin was on God's sovereignty and he made several references to "that dead dog". Throughout the entire multi page writing I was curious as to exactly who that dead dog was. Turns out another had mentioned Calvin in his book, but Calvin would not address and give enough respect and credit to the man to mention him by name.

        God bless,
        William
        Wasn't it Albert Pighius?
        Comment>

        • #5
          Yeah, that's the problem with building on a foundation of human tradition. Even if the first generation was sound, you are at the mercy of later builders. In Reformed Theology, we start with an absolute foundation of the Apostolic writings and the previous revealed scripture of the OT. Anything that is not plumb with that immovable, eternal foundation (the true Gospel of Jesus Christ) MUST be torn down and burned and rebuilt from the foundation of stone. Thus the founding fathers can build upon the foundation, but also must answer to it. Calvin and Luther can build upon that foundation, but again must answer to it.

          And yet just as Catholicism drifted from the teaching of the early Church Fathers, so too, Calvinism has had would-be teachers come along and build upon the teachings of Calvin, which have stood 'proof' from scripture, with the 'strange fire' of hyper-Calvinism that will not stand up to the test of scripture. Were Reformed Theology to be a slave to 'traditions', as many other paths are, we would potentially be at the mercy of these bad teachings and unable to reform them without toppling the entire 'house of cards' of all human tradition that we had built our faith upon. Praise God, Reformed Theology IS built upon 'Sola Scriptura', thus only new Scriptural evidence from older manuscripts (which at best will change only subtle nuances, not great Truths) can change the foundation one iota, so all teachings from the Church Fathers, through Calvin and Luther, on up to modern teachers like Sproul, can be tested against the same universal, unchanging foundation and the dross (like double-predestination) discarded and the Gold used to build the Church invisible closer to God.

          Kudos to the reformers for the courage and wisdom and grace, to burn the tower of straw to the ground and rebuild from the only foundation that could never be corrupted. I am in their debt.
          Given the task, I can overlook the 'unbrotherly' language when reading them in context. Our challenge is to remember that we have a slightly different fight ... to correct our errant siblings and hope to lead some back to their first love.

          Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

          - Soli Deo Gloria
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by atpollard View Post
            Praise God, Reformed Theology IS built upon 'Sola Scriptura', thus only new Scriptural evidence from older manuscripts (which at best will change only subtle nuances, not great Truths) can change the foundation one iota, so all teachings from the Church Fathers, through Calvin and Luther, on up to modern teachers like Sproul, can be tested against the same universal, unchanging foundation and the dross (like double-predestination) discarded and the Gold used to build the Church invisible closer to God.
            Early Reformers held to Double Predestination, and personally, I haven't found a fault in it but rather distortions of the doctrine. There are lots of misunderstandings concerning this doctrine, and they usually become a straw-man in debate. Although I suggest that Triple Predestination is likened to dross which may be discarded.

            Here's the distortion of double predestination:

            This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

            And here's the Reformed view:

            In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

            In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”2 Luther continued:

            When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God’s working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God’s own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.

            Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence. - R C Sproul
            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by atpollard View Post
              I am not an expert, but I am pretty sure it is the "Sola" that they are taking exception with and not the "Scriptura".
              Isn't that was caused the Reformation, that is, holding Scripture and tradition as equal authorities which led to various abuses of power within the Church? The Protestant Reformers did not believe they were bringing a new teaching to Europe, but rather they thought themselves to be bringing the very old teachings of Scripture to Europe – teachings that had become clouded by the traditions of the Church. The Protestant Reformation was a return to first principles.

              Some quotes:
              • Carthaginian theologian Tertullian (2nd -3rd c) wrote, “I revere the fullness of His Scriptures.”
              • Clement of Alexandria (2nd – 3rd c) titled a chapter in his book Stromata “On the Scripture as the the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished.”
              • In the same time period, Italian theologian Hippolytus wrote, “There is one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.”
              • John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (4th-5th c), said, “Just as people who are deprived of daylight stumble about, so also those who do not look at the brilliant light of the Holy Scriptures must frequently and constantly sin because they walk in the worst darkness.”
              • Saint Athanasius (4th c) said, “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”
              • Cyril of Jerusalem (4th c) wrote, “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures…For this salvation which we believe depends…on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
              • Saint Jerome (4th-5th c) remarked, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
              • Vincent of Lerins (5th c) wrote, “The canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient.”
              • The Benedictine theologian, Rupert of Deutz (11th-12th c), held “Whatever may be arrived at outside of the rule of the Holy Scriptures, nobody can lawfully demand from a Catholic.”
              • Scottish philosopher-theologian Duns Scotus (13th-14th c) believed “Scripture contains the doctrine necessary for Christian pilgrims.”
              • Gabriel Biel (15th c), a German churchman, wrote, “Only Holy Scripture teaches all that is to be believed and hoped and all other things necessary for salvation.”

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>

              • #8
                Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386)

                We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...(Catechetical Lectures, 4.17)
                Comment>

                • #9
                  In his work On the Trinity, Gregory of Nyssa makes an excellent point. The Arians claimed that their tradition\custom supported their view. You see every group had their own so-called traditions\customs. How then could one decide which tradition\custom was correct? Gregory of Nyssa said:
                  What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
                  When tradition\custom failed (and it often did), inspired Scripture was the answer and still is.
                  Last edited by Origen; 12-14-2016, 01:35 PM.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by William View Post
                    Anyone else intrigued? Catholics love to argue against Sola Scriptura, but can they provide any basis for Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition? Think about it, now watch them turn to Scripture, but why?

                    Thankfully, Protestants have Scripture written in a language which can be understood. Isn't it equally amusing to witness Catholics utilize this very same source but for different reasons? What I find rather interesting is listening to Catholic arguments which always tend to undermine the authority of Scripture while self referencing as equal in authority and power.

                    Matthew 15:3-6
                    • Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
                    • 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
                    • 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
                    • 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
                    • 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a]
                    • 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word[b] of God.


                    God bless,
                    William

                    The passages you provided me for sola scriptura is a stretch of the imagination. Where in the gospels did Jesus teach SS as you understand it?
                    Are you happy that there are thousands of denominations? Did Jesus say he would build his Church upon this rock? or did he mean build his churches on thousands of denominations that don't agree on key doctrinal issues?

                    We have 1500 yrs to back up what we believe in. What do you have? 15000 denominations? For 1500 yrs Christendom was one. Only after barely 300 years have SS splintered what Luther started in so many ways. How can any protestant be proud of this type of disunity? The harshest words Paul used in his epistles was against those who causes schisms.

                    Was this what Jesus really wanted? Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Calvinists? Was this the unity he prayed for at the Last Supper?
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by William View Post

                      Isn't that was caused the Reformation, that is, holding Scripture and tradition as equal authorities which led to various abuses of power within the Church? The Protestant Reformers did not believe they were bringing a new teaching to Europe, but rather they thought themselves to be bringing the very old teachings of Scripture to Europe – teachings that had become clouded by the traditions of the Church. The Protestant Reformation was a return to first principles.

                      Some quotes:
                      • Carthaginian theologian Tertullian (2nd -3rd c) wrote, “I revere the fullness of His Scriptures.”
                      • Clement of Alexandria (2nd – 3rd c) titled a chapter in his book Stromata “On the Scripture as the the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished.”
                      • In the same time period, Italian theologian Hippolytus wrote, “There is one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.”
                      • John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (4th-5th c), said, “Just as people who are deprived of daylight stumble about, so also those who do not look at the brilliant light of the Holy Scriptures must frequently and constantly sin because they walk in the worst darkness.”
                      • Saint Athanasius (4th c) said, “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”
                      • Cyril of Jerusalem (4th c) wrote, “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures…For this salvation which we believe depends…on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
                      • Saint Jerome (4th-5th c) remarked, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
                      • Vincent of Lerins (5th c) wrote, “The canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient.”
                      • The Benedictine theologian, Rupert of Deutz (11th-12th c), held “Whatever may be arrived at outside of the rule of the Holy Scriptures, nobody can lawfully demand from a Catholic.”
                      • Scottish philosopher-theologian Duns Scotus (13th-14th c) believed “Scripture contains the doctrine necessary for Christian pilgrims.”
                      • Gabriel Biel (15th c), a German churchman, wrote, “Only Holy Scripture teaches all that is to be believed and hoped and all other things necessary for salvation.”

                      God bless,
                      William
                      NONE of your quotes actually says "Sola scriptura". Where is the "alone"? Where is the rejection of tradition and the Magisterium.
                      Furthermore you have cherry picked the writing of these CATHOLIC authors. Why not mention all their other catholic thoughts as well?
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by William View Post

                        Early Reformers held to Double Predestination, and personally, I haven't found a fault in it but rather distortions of the doctrine. There are lots of misunderstandings concerning this doctrine, and they usually become a straw-man in debate. Although I suggest that Triple Predestination is likened to dross which may be discarded.



                        God bless,
                        William
                        This is what SS does. It makes everyone else their own pope or church or authority.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post

                          This is what SS does. It makes everyone else their own pope or church or authority.
                          Ironically, it is on matters of tradition that most Protestant denominations are divided, not on matters of Scripture. For example, should the Bishop be the final authority in the church body, or should power rest in the hands of a group of elders? That is far more a matter of tradition than scripture. Is 'baptism' sprinkling from a bowl, or immersion? Again, more about tradition than scripture.

                          I apologize for any offense that I may be about to give, I was taught the Gospel by lay Catholic Charismatics, but I read the bible and could not reconcile what I was being taught in the "Chatechism for Inquirers" with what I was reading in scripture. When I sat down with a priest to have it explained, "Church Tradition" was the only explanation given. Where the Bible is silent, I am prepared to entertain the teachings of a Church Father from a few hundred years later as at least plausible. However, I have a real problem when the Traditions contradict the words of the Apostles. I could not in good conscience join the Catholic Church. I did not believe what you believe because that is not what the Bible, the Catholic Bible from my mother's childhood complete with the Apocrapha, said in the Gospels. There was a lot I did not understand, but an awful lot of what the Bible says is crystal clear. "Jesus, your mother and brothers are here." and "James, the brother of Jesus" is clearly in conflict with the 'tradition' that Mary died a virgin and also ascended into heaven. For that matter, why is something as important as Mary, Queen of the Universe ... to whom we are told to pray ... not mentioned in the Bible? That seems like something pretty important to not even mention in passing.

                          Mortal and Venial sins, Pergatory ... also vitally important 'traditions' that none of the Apostles bothered to mention in the Bible. Then there is the whole praying for the dead to reduce their time in Pergatory, which directly contradicts what the Bible says. So is tradition wrong or was the Apostle wrong? They are in direct contradiction (one says DO pray for the dead, and the other FORBIDS it), so one of them must be wrong.

                          Sola Scriptura, the battle cry of the reformation, says that the tradition of selling forgiveness is wrong, the tradition of worshiping anything except God is wrong, all of the human traditions piled on the truth taught by Jesus and recorded by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles in the holy Bible must be swept away. It is a call to LISTEN to what God says and do what God says and trust that God's holy word is more than enough.

                          As Peter said, “We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5:29), so the Reformers were just echoing the words of Peter. Obey the Word of God, not the Traditions of Men.

                          If you and I believe the same risen Lord and call on him as our Lord and Savior, then you and I are part of the same Body of Christ, the Invisible Church ... and your Pope and my Pastor have no power to change that. Only the Father gives to the Son, and only the Son knows his sheep.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            My answers are in bold

                            Originally posted by atpollard View Post
                            Ironically, it is on matters of tradition that most Protestant denominations are divided, not on matters of Scripture. For example, should the Bishop be the final authority in the church body, or should power rest in the hands of a group of elders? That is far more a matter of tradition than scripture. Is 'baptism' sprinkling from a bowl, or immersion? Again, more about tradition than scripture.
                            I disgaree. When I see James White debate other protestant pastors, it is not about tradition. It is about scripture.
                            Ask yourself, do you ever see Catholics debate among themselves what is and what isn't dogma?
                            But when you go on youtube and see a boatload of protestant pastors going at it on key dogmas and scripture, it is hardly plausible that a petty discussion on tradition is happening.


                            I apologize for any offense that I may be about to give, I was taught the Gospel by lay Catholic Charismatics, but I read the bible and could not reconcile what I was being taught in the "Chatechism for Inquirers" with what I was reading in scripture. When I sat down with a priest to have it explained, "Church Tradition" was the only explanation given. Where the Bible is silent, I am prepared to entertain the teachings of a Church Father from a few hundred years later as at least plausible. However, I have a real problem when the Traditions contradict the words of the Apostles. I could not in good conscience join the Catholic Church. I did not believe what you believe because that is not what the Bible, the Catholic Bible from my mother's childhood complete with the Apocrapha, said in the Gospels. There was a lot I did not understand, but an awful lot of what the Bible says is crystal clear. "Jesus, your mother and brothers are here." and "James, the brother of Jesus" is clearly in conflict with the 'tradition' that Mary died a virgin and also ascended into heaven. For that matter, why is something as important as Mary, Queen of the Universe ... to whom we are told to pray ... not mentioned in the Bible? That seems like something pretty important to not even mention in passing.

                            The bible was not around and canonized for centuries. The Church had to had function some way without it. They relied on what was orally preached and handed down from the apostles. There was no urgent need to put things in writing, until all these apocrypha writings started to caused confusion within the Church. An infallible authority was needed to sift through what was and wasn't inspired. It can't be done the other way around. Sola scriptura puts the carriage in front of the horse.

                            I understand your qualms about Marian dogmas, prayers to saints, purgatory etc... but on the flipside sola scriptura has yielded far worse things:

                            1.Calvinism and the 5 points
                            2. Double imputation
                            3. Easy believism
                            4. 1000s of denominations, the unity of the Church torn asunder
                            5. Churches founded by men and not by God
                            6. Zero apostolic succession.
                            7. Sanctification as optional in the christian life.
                            8. Anyone and everyone is their own authority
                            9. Zero historicity

                            How is any of that any better? Basically you are trading a headache for a migraine. How is denominational protestantism the answer?

                            The early Church did not have a single protestant bone in their body. Other than the orthodox schism we still shared unanimous doctrinal unity for 1500 yrs. Luther came and undid all that. Luther unleashed anarchy. He himself persecuted and bashed anyone who so disagreed with him.

                            There are thorough answers to everyone of those issues you mentioned. The biblical text is there to back them up.


                            Sola Scriptura, the battle cry of the reformation, says that the tradition of selling forgiveness is wrong, the tradition of worshiping anything except God is wrong, all of the human traditions piled on the truth taught by Jesus and recorded by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles in the holy Bible must be swept away. It is a call to LISTEN to what God says and do what God says and trust that God's holy word is more than enough.

                            And rightly so. The indulgences was a blatant abuse. Luther was right in calling the Church out for it. But abuses abound in every institution even in protestant circles. Abuse is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Abuse isn't heresy but it can be corrected. Sola scriptura is definitely not the solution to that problem. Sola scriptura causes more problems than it solves.

                            From how I see it, protestants really don't care about unity. There are blatant divisions in protestant circles but for some reason they are overlooked.
                            You quote from scripture, but you don't claim to be infallible, so why should I pay you any heed?
                            Is not your interpretation a mere opinion?

                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              The passages you provided me for sola scriptura is a stretch of the imagination. Where in the gospels did Jesus teach SS as you understand it?
                              Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension!

                              As far as the rest of your multi question blitz, it seems that again you're redirecting the topic, because you can't address the argument correctly.

                              Love your baby in the bathwater cliche too. That's the cliche people serve when they want others to accept something unquestioned. Show me the baby, because that tub has been drained and only sludge remains at the bottom of it.

                              William

                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap