[Quix]

Ah, the old,
"If you were in the Spirit you'd agree with me," line.

Y'all's versions of that are:

--If Proddys were truly proper !!!!TRADITIONAL!!!! Christians,
they'd be bowing, scraping and kissing toes at Mary's idols, too!


--If Proddys were truly Heaven-bound Christians,
they'd be awash
in the contradictory complexities of the Vatican Cult's Catechism, too.

--If Proddys were truly intellectual, informed, logical, sane, rational,
they'd be supporting our !!!!CONTROL!!!! and conquest of FR and the Rel Forum, too!

--If Proddys were truly properly trained Christians,
they'd be sucking up to
Mary's Marvelous, Magnificent, Magical, Munificent,
Magicsterically approved and Glorified Nurturance, too.

--If Proddys were tolerable within 200 feet of
worshipful, idolatrous, blasphemous, ritualized, genuflecting, White Hanky covered, Holy Water saturated, blood and flesh fed,
robotized Vatican sheeple,
they'd be marching in Pied Piper lock step with us, too.



===========================================================================

WE KNOW. WE GOT THOSE MESSAGES A VERY LONG TIME AGO.
WE SEE THEM REPEATED HEREON FAIRLY CONSTANTLY.

[Mad Dawg]

Nope. that is just not true at all.

The all important difference is that the Church makes an argument from first principles to that as a conclusion. We don't START with, "You should agree with us." We conclude with it.

But here, as I said, if agreed upon premises follow unquestioned logic to a conclusion that presently no screen name doesn't like, we don't get a re-examination of the premises or a criticism of the steps of the argument. Instead the whole thing is thrown out because it's 'reasoning according to one's own understanding.'

In FORM PNSN's posts are closer to Notwithstanding's because they just contain rejection of the whole thing because it didn't come out right. No dialog, no retracing of argumentative steps, just "You're wrong."

This is not about personalities, (or not only) it's about a doctrine of man and of truth.

And it's about the possibility of conversation.

[Running On Empty]

Is that the royal “we” ?

Just asking