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.
Your introduction of the origins of the Church — what’s the point? Again, seriously, are we about achieving something or exchanging fire? Seriously. What is our goal?
Show me the reason, the logos in agreeing to premises and process but rejecting the conclusion. What, in your view, is the appropriate way to proceed when reason is tossed out of the conversation? Colored fonts? Yell louder? Religious war?
I think that the value in what Notwithstanding is doing is that it’s just stripping away the frills. It all seems to come down to,”Am not!” and “Are too!”