Heck no. I don't have the time, and I don't think I got you wrong the first time. And as far as I can remember, I was not the one who flounced off in a huff.
....the author is defining "Christianity" as "My personal Christian belief system."....the author has basically written an essay that has more in common, philosophically, with Jack Chick than with any great Christian thinkers. "If you don't believe the way I do, or you write fiction that doesn't conform to my worldview, you are not a Christian" is a statement of personal opinion, and a rather shallow one, not a theological argument.
I hope that, whatever you think, you have by now at least realized that this was so much nonsense, unless you think that I have personally invented Catholicism and Thomism. As for invoking Jack T.Chick... well! When I pointed out - in three long paragraphs - that you had got a number of things wrong, and that I was disappointed to find someone like you lining up on the (at best) Unitarian-Deist side of people who had called me all kinds of names because I took Christianity to be Christianity and not Deism, you accused me of saying that you were ignorant - which is the one thing I had not in fact said or meant - and closed in three sentences flat; which is close to my definition of flouncing off. You showed neither a great understanding of my views nor any great desire to acquire it. So I suggest that you do not charge me with your own sins. Apart from anything else, it makes you look sillier than you ought to be.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 07:45 pm (UTC)....the author is defining "Christianity" as "My personal Christian belief system."....the author has basically written an essay that has more in common, philosophically, with Jack Chick than with any great Christian thinkers. "If you don't believe the way I do, or you write fiction that doesn't conform to my worldview, you are not a Christian" is a statement of personal opinion, and a rather shallow one, not a theological argument.
I hope that, whatever you think, you have by now at least realized that this was so much nonsense, unless you think that I have personally invented Catholicism and Thomism. As for invoking Jack T.Chick... well! When I pointed out - in three long paragraphs - that you had got a number of things wrong, and that I was disappointed to find someone like you lining up on the (at best) Unitarian-Deist side of people who had called me all kinds of names because I took Christianity to be Christianity and not Deism, you accused me of saying that you were ignorant - which is the one thing I had not in fact said or meant - and closed in three sentences flat; which is close to my definition of flouncing off. You showed neither a great understanding of my views nor any great desire to acquire it. So I suggest that you do not charge me with your own sins. Apart from anything else, it makes you look sillier than you ought to be.