You're wrong, scripture is the issue and our conversation has included little, if any of it. You've avoided any specific analysis of passages and prefer instead to put your own intepretation without benefit of debate on actual scripture. This is exactly why I don't usually engage Catholics. Generally, you see no need for scripture since you believe that your church has the authority to override scripture on any subject. I hold scripture as the bottom line, you don't.
And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.
So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.
I don't think Armstrong is wrong on most points. But I think your interpretation and spin void of scriptural debate is flawed. I'll show you what you're doing and maybe you'll see what I mean.
According the heading infallability in the Catholic encyclopedia, the pope could say ex cathedra that having sex with babies is perfectly moral and acceptable in the eyes of God and he would be right in your eyes. Why do you believe the pope has the power to make sex with babies morally acceptable?
Doug, I don't think I've done anything like what you're saying. I think I am being accurate in quoting and linking to Armstrong and the Fundamental Beliefs.
I think they do emphasize, or at least point to, more than one God - the UCG section specifically emphasizes the "distinction" and plural form used for God. I've read the God Family article on the UCG site and several others and I've read the Armstrong articles I linked to and several others. They are consistent. The UCG articles parallel the Armstrong topics even.
And your reply comparing them to a "married couple" follows the same thought.
I really don't see where I'm spinning the position. I really do not. Help me out with it.