In one example US7 approvingly pings his (Catholic)father to a thread about the Pope. This shows he was then Catholic or had then decided to become Catholic? On the one or two occasions when the Episcopal Church did something right and a Catholic friend would tell me, that PROVED he was a crypto-Episcopalian?
I k now that those who are devoted to the Word, don't like it when we look at the actual words and their possible meanings, but in the second example, we have a ping to some Catholics, with the words, "Catholic Ping". Well THAT's incriminating, isn't it? Except that a "Catholic Ping" could just as well be TOO Catholics, or ABOUT Catholics, as FROM a Catholic.
In the third example, on a thread about Our Lady of Guadelupe, we have an incriminating ping. Tis was about 6-7 months ago.Would it be better if US7 engaged in no thought or cocnveersation and keo himself from any knowledge of the Church until AFTEr he decided to join? Would that make his decision wiser and more credible?
It seems the case against US7 amounts to, "For three years or more, this man has been aware of the Church of which family members are adherents, has engaged in conversation, PUBLIC conversation no less, about that Church, and NOW he days he's decided to join it himself.
Well, THAT's suspicious!
NOT!
The argument seems to be that one can only be EITHER:
1) Ignorant of the existence of the Catholic Church;
2) Openly opposed to the Catholic Church; or
3) A member or spy or co-collaborator or unindicted co-conspirator of the Catholic Church. US7 was niether 1 nor 3, so he must be 3.
The possibility that one might spend a few years in a process of decision making about what might be the most important decision of one's life is evidently not deemed worthy of consideration.
No sale. Case dismissed for trying to spin a verdict out of gossamer.
Heh. I’m a #3 also. :D
If you read my post again, I said that the existence of US7 RC pings back to 2005 and the lack of Prot pings at all raises reasonable doubts. It does. No denying it.