Maybe I could paint a better word picture . . .
1. “A” says that “C” is a popous dork.
2. “A” says or implies that “A” either hears God better; or knows God’s perspective or attitude on such things better; or some such better than “C.”
3. Otherwise, “A” would logically construe reality that “C” had as much of a handle on God’s perspective of such things as “A” does.
4. Since “A” castigates “C’s” relationship with God as such a farce/horrible/a sham etc. then logically, “A” must think A” has a MUCH BETTER relationship with God; is much more in agreement with God on such matters.
5. Which, without a shred of evidence to offer otherwise, . . . leaves the impression that “A” is at least as arrogant, foolish and missing the boat on God’s sensibilities on such matters as they accuse “C” of being.
Seems pretty elementary to me. Sorry the task was so difficult.
What is really elementary is your mismanagement of the alphabet and your abuse of logic.
Three little words.....
yada, yada, yada (and a yawn)