[Dr. Eckleburg]

You would reply in the "for" - using the last part of your example: According to the Bible, which I believe is the final authority, there is ONE propitiation for our sins, ONE mediator between God and men, ONE Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

So on an ecumenic thread, we could not preface that comment with "No, Mary is not a co-redeemer because...?"

Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.

[netmilsmom]

You know how to cut and paste. Cut and paste a quote and then you don’t have to redefine. Like this...

>>Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.<<

Then reply. It’s not hard.

I really like this “only positive” idea!

[Religion Moderator]

So on an ecumenic thread, we could not preface that comment with "No, Mary is not a co-redeemer because...?"

Exactly. That is how you achieve discussion without being iconoclastic.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“So on an ecumenic thread, we could not preface that comment with “No, Mary is not a co-redeemer because...?”

“Because sometimes that phrase is simply used to redefine the discussion when replying to a post from a few days earlier.”

I guess you would be better off to restate the other’s position or quote him:

“You say Mary is the co-redeemer in post #45. I believe ...”