Funny isn't it, how when you're debating someone and not agreeing with the person, that your problem is that you don't understand it.
The implication being that if you "really" understood it, you'd agree with your opponent, because their side and their opinion is so compelling you couldn't help yourself. Therefore any disagreement is due to ignorance, not choice.
And the RF isn't the only place I've seen that mentality.
No, the argument is that if you "really" understood it you would at least be able to correctly articulate it and not hide behind misunderstood statistics.
It's just that most of the non-Catholics here who argue against it have yet to show the least understanding. I'd just like to see if those who attack it had a clue about what they were attacking. And I have yet to see it.
Plus, we don't have the capacity to understand...Until we become Catholics...
Until we become Catholics, we can not know that we have no eternal security...That we can't possibly know if we'll be saved until we meet Jesus face to face...
Until we become Catholics, we won't know that the teaching of Paul was pretty much useless...
Until we become Catholics, we won't realize that we are not in Jesus and Jesus is not in us, and that our only contact with Jesus is when we eat that cracker...
Makes you want to run right down and eat one of those crackers...