[marshmallow]

In post #76 I read this:

I don't "edit for shock value"

Uh huh.

So 2 posts later, in #78 I read this:

Unlike the RCC clergy whose ranks are literally filled with sexual deviates.

"Literally filled". No hyperbole or shock value there, of course. Then, on a roll now, 3 posts later we have this:

I speak against some of the doctrines of the RCC which are anti-Scriptural fables.

Again, no shock value there.

So.......our clergy is "filled" with perverts and and our doctrines are "anti-Scriptural" fables.

Rather than attempting to refute this, which as others have pointed out, is an exercise in futility in your case, I'm running with it. Agreeing with you.

Ours is a Church full of sexual deviants engaged in teaching fables. Give us your medical prognosis, Doc. Don't be shy. Definitely a terminal illness, no? God's blessing could never be with such an abomination, surely?

How long to live?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No hyperbole or shock value there, of course.

The actual quote was "edit for shock value."

But I bet you knew that.

I don't mind my posts being seen as "shocking." The errors of the RCC are massively shocking and do far more damage than anything I might inflict on the magisterium's confusion.

You'll note also, for the sake of the truthfulness of your comments, that I was speaking of the immorality of the clergy. I never once made that assessment of the congregation.

But you probably knew that, too. And yet you still chose to misquote me...again.