Of course annalex could just say that his interpretation is also "an observation", and then the two of you would, once again, be even.
The plain language is very clear and so is the bandwagon straw.
Of course annalex could claim that his interpretation is very clear to him, and then once again, the two of you would be even.
I guess reasonable discourse only applies if one agrees that Catholic doctrine is the truth. Sorry, no dice. When it doesn't stand up rationally to what is written as God's word and/or reality itself, it's not the truth. It's simply popular opinion, traditional, or otherwise.
Of course annalex could say the same thing to you, replacing the word "Catholic" with the word "spunkets's", and then, once again, the two of you would be even.
Do you see how pointless this is?
-A8
I never said, or say "that's just your interpretation. I presented the facts in a logical fashion and showed how only one true conclusion could be drawn from them. This case was easy. Once that's done in a complete fashion, there's no point in going beyond that.
"Of course annalex could say the same thing to you, replacing the word "Catholic" with the word "spunkets's", and then, once again, the two of you would be even."
I didn't make the comment to annalex. Both of us presented facts and what we thought the conclusion warranted by the facts was. That is rational discouse. I made the remark to the comment, "that's your opinion", which when is repeatedly made, is not rational discourse.