I know it pains you to know that I actually had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Paisley, who made it very clear to me and those with whom I sitting that there was no difference to him between what was considered by some to be "sacred" and what was "secular". To him it was all sacred.
I say "likely" in the context of his parishioners, only because I didn't happen to speak to others of them personally, but since they continued to have him at the helm of the denomination for the better part of his 60-odd years in ministry -- one in which I happened to have been reared -- what would be obvious to most casual readers somehow is for some prideful reason a sticking point for a clearly envious hyper-critic of Paisley like yourself.
To cut and paste an exact phrase from your own post..."I am puzzled as to how you'd know, really" Have you spoken to them? No?............LOL!!
You seem to have missed that I was speaking about you. Read more slowly, carefully, and deliberately in the future and it's likely that you will make fewer glaring comprehension mistakes.
Carry on and declare victory.
Yes, I agree. You have been clearly outgunned and outflanked in this debate. Thank you, I will accept your surrender in this present discussion, graciously.
Timewaster.
OK, I wasn't going to rub your face in it, but if you can't keep up with the discussion on a thread that you posted yourself, just don't post.
FReegards!
