[Ken4TA]

These two propositions are not identical.

For: Let's play with squares and rectangles.
IF you are a square, you are a rectangle.
BUT that is NOT the same as
If you are NOT a square, you are not a rectangle.

So, looking at the logic, Saying "if you are not in the
body you are not saved"
is NOT the same as saying
If you are in the body you are saved.

So the quotes you provided do not support your contention.

What a mumble-jumble of logic! Come on, you can do better than that :-)

[Mad Dawg]

What is unclear or jumbled about it?

Look, use the following symbols, for brevity: "S->R" means "IF S THEN R." Use "~S" to mean "NOT S". Use 'T' to mean True. and 'F' to mean false. Then we can construct 4 propositions:

	Symbol	Example	Truth Value
1	S->R	IF a Square, THEN a Rectangle.	T
2	~S->~R	IF NOT a Square THEN NOT a Rectangle.	F
3	R->S	IF a Rectangle THEN a Square.	F
4	~R->~S	IF NOT a Rectangle THEN NOT a Square.	T

So IIRC, metmom had texts supporting a proposition of type 4. So she argued that they proved a proposition of form 3.

She didn't seem to get why that didn't work, hence the rectangles and squares.

It's only jumbled if you're not used to working our the implications of various statements