To: Mad Dawg; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; Godzilla; ...
No . . .
Non Roman Catholics et al
find the wild fantasized extrapolations, inferences, assumptions ostensibly based . . .
seemingly on a very rubbery Bible, dictionary and history
to be well beyond tolerable belief in a number of specifics.
143 posted on
05/06/2010 9:09:38 PM PDT by
Quix
(BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
To: Quix
It's all very well to take recourse to the usual litany of accusations centered around rubber, but if the general charge is not reduced and clearly related to the specific thing you are complaining about, then it just passes me by.
Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?
Is Mary NOT the mother of Jesus the Christ?
Is the Church NOT the Body of which Christ is the head?
I don't see the wildness or the rubber.
In related news, I am astonished the a psychologist questions the bonding of infant with mother as important in the development of the ability to love.
182 posted on
05/07/2010 7:38:21 AM PDT by
Mad Dawg
(O Maria, sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis qui ad te confugimus.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson