Please describe the form you use during your meditations? The rosary is a form of meditation that is well within the spirit of the scriptures, and you don't get to decide for everyone which form of meditation is correct. Such a thing is way beyond your pay grade as a mere follower of Christ and not a leader of His way that must be listened to or even considered as one has their own walk with Christ.
No it is not within the spirit of scripture at all. Please show us one apostle who used the rosary beads or prayed to Mary. That is right you cannot. No you do not mediate within the spirit of the scriptures at all.

You don't have to listen to me, I would be surprised if you could hear me. In fact, you rubbish me constantly it makes me wonder why you bother to respond to my posts, as you hold me in such low esteem. All the claims of loving your neighbour just oozes out of your posts.

If I am not to be listened to why would I describe anything to you at all, it would be a waste of my time.
We believe our biblical model is just fine and do not need your input as we make our walk with Christ in this life.

A man so full of biblical errors it is not even funny.
If your non biblical model was fin, then it would not be corrupt and we know by its fruit it is. Martin Luther is not full of biblical errors and I have never found him particularly funny. Mind you I find most of your popes not good enough to tie up his shoes. Their fruit is so disgusting. However, that cadaver pope well he epitomizes all that is wrong in your institution.
Oh? And what makes you think Protestants know the Gospel any better than Catholics?
And you agree with uninspired, unwritten Protestant Tradition.
Such as...?
What's the difference? "Oh, but, but, but, our Tradition is Biblical, yours is not." is no answer.
It's funny how you refuse to answer questions, then tell us we follow Unbiblical traditions without giving any evidence or answers, but then turn around and accuse somebody else of not giving answers.
What makes you think your Tradition is any more biblical than ours? It all comes down to interpretation. How do you know yours is the right one?
You still haven't told us what "traditions" you're talking about.
Okay wise guy---and what makes you think you understand the Scriptures any better than Catholics? You see, we have those very same Scriptures.
If you go through threads in the Catholic forums, you'll see that Catholics often refer to scripture, but very rarely cite it. And, when they do, it's very nearly always out of context (eg. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc). You never answer any questions or follow up questions. You just parrot somebody else's talking points, instead of studying the scriptures and giving a thoughtful answer of your own.

When Christians answer, we often cite scripture and are more than happy to back it up and answer follow up questions.

You are more than welcome to show how we have misinterpreted or misunderstood scripture, but you never do.
When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.
And yet, every time you tell us we're wrong, we ask you to show us how and you never do.

You're really nothing more than a child who sticks his fingers in his ears when someone says something he doesn't like.
Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic.
Why should we believe the Catholic Church is any of these things when you can't even explain where in scripture the Catholic Church is said to be any of these things?
Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
Catholics see the authority
On this we agree.

The issue isn't whether or not it is the Spirit who teaches and the Spirit who has authority, but the mechanism in which the Spirit speaks.
So, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit if you don't first follow the Bible's command to test it in light of scripture?

For Protestants, I guess, the Scriptures alone are the concrete manifestation of the authority of the Spirit.
Once again, showing you do not know the difference between sola scriptura and nuda scriptura.
If the Spirit guides the Church, and I think we can agree that the Spirit guides the Church--the Body of Christ, it is difficult for me to understand, again, why the testimony of the Church to some teaching, say the IC, should not be taken as evidence that the Scriptures teaches the doctrine, if the Scriptures themselves are unclear.
Saying the scriptures teach something is not true if scripture teaches the opposite.

You continue to tell us it is scriptural, but have yet to show us where it's taught in scripture.
Put another way: when we approach the Scriptures, and we seek to prove or disprove that the Scriptures teach something, and the evidence in the Scriptures is inconclusive, why shouldn't the Church have the authority to judge the evidence and then make a determination either way, and then bind the Christian conscience to that decision?
The Bible says we're to show others the liberty to disagree about matters of aidaphora.

The problem is the things the Catholic Church so egregiously contradicts are often not matters of aidaphora, but are very serious, essential doctrines.
So you have two sides to an issue, again, say the IC of Mary. One side says "The Scriptures teach this doctrine." The other side says "The Scriptures do not teach this doctrine." Why doesn't the Church get to judge the evidence and then make an authoritative, definitive determination either way?
Why should the Catholic Church have greater authority than anybody else?

For instance, if the Bible says Mary is a sinner, then who gave the Catholic Church the authority to contradict that?

If the Bible says Mary had other children, then who gave the Church the authority to contradict that?
DO YOU KNOW THE ROSARY? Most of it is about Jesus and the things that happened in His life, things worthy of lengthy meditation. Out of all the Mysteries only two deal with Mary specifically
So, as long as there are only two heretical beliefs, it's OK?
, and one of those could be interpreted as coming direct from Revelation where she could be seen as the "Queen of Heaven" that is mentioned there.
Could you please cite the verse in Revelation that mentions Mary at all, much less as "Queen of Heaven"?
The first part of the "Hail Mary" prayer also comes from the scriptures, specifically Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42.
And this justifies praying to her...how, exactly?
And yet, Catholicism buries the true Gospel of Jesus Christ under a ton of man-made traditions and beliefs, especially in its Marolatry, making Jesus Christ take a back seat to His mom, except at Christmas and Easter...why would anyone want to do that, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men"?
Sounds familiar...

13“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Matthew 23:13-14