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.
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.
That’s not my observation, at all.
My observation is quite different.
Relentlessly for more than 10 years on FR, I’ve OBSERVED DEMONSTRATED
that RC’s on FR
BEGIN with their biases, propagandized mental, perceptual screens
such that:
virtually NOTHING which LACKS CLEAR AND SPECIFIC sanction, APPROVAL by the Vatican
can even be well PERCEIVED by many RC’s on FR.
. . . much less fairly or reasonably evaluated or compared to evidence, history, logic, reason, The Bible . . . etc.
I also do not observe in the historical record that the Vatican system BEGAN
with a remotely accurate foundation built on objective reality, records, history, truth—at all—much less Biblical.