And who would that be? Whose laws are being violated by mind reading? Do your rules of evidence require that the accuser must demonstrate successful mind reading or only, circumstantially, that an attempt was made to perform the impossible? Does the accused have to prove their innocence or does an allegation by the right party convict?
What happens in the case we so often see on these threads when only through an exercise in attempted mind reading can an accusation of mind reading be made? Do you simply revert to the four legs good, two legs bad method that concludes Catholics are guilty by reason of Catholicism? No wonder the Pauliwogs are so perpetually confused.
“No wonder the Pauliwogs are so perpetually confused.”
Leaving aside the obvious (arrogant?) disapproval of the Lord in His choice of an apostle - but then the papal eminence has never been shy about correcting the Lord, if Protestants are “Pauliwogs” then Catholics are what? “Peter ______s”? Propriety prevents me from filling in the blank, but the possibilities are numerous ... Alliteration? Maybe. Assonance? Could be. Onomatopoeia? Interesting. Homoioteleuton? Possible. Rhyme? Ooooh ... Oh. Embarrassing. Alright. I’ll stop now.