[Dr. Eckleburg]

The use of strong language to condemn evils has been a hallmarlk of the RF. Typically such strong language is aimed against my Church.

The difference which is pretty clear to anyone reading this thread is that when Christians criticize the RCC, those criticisms involve the anti-Scriptural beliefs and practices of the RCC, whereas the "strong language" you seem to employ is simply name-calling. There's no core to your argument. No discussion of faith, practices, beliefs, perspectives, ideology, theology, etc.

Just blather.

[Notwithstanding]

Eckelsberg,

It’s pretty clear
to anyone reading this thread
that when the Church
criticizes your sect,
those criticisms decry
your sect’s perversions and
your sect’s practices
and beliefs
that are anti-Scriptural,

whereas the “strong language”
you seem to employ is simply name-calling.

There’s never ever ever ever ever a core to your argument.

No discussion of
your sect’s faith,
your sect’s practices,
your sect’s beliefs,
your sect’s perspectives,
your sect’s ideology,
your sect’s theology,
etc.

There’s hardly even a mention of your sect.
Are you afraid of your sect’s reputation?
Your sect’s history?
Your sect’s incoherence?
Most people are delighted
to share with others
the community that helps
them to experience and know true faith in God.

But with you, all we get is blather.

[Judith Anne]

The difference which is pretty clear to anyone reading this thread is that when Christians criticize the RCC,

Hold it! The word "Christians" is set up in the sentence to indicate opposition to "RCC" when in fact, the first and only Christians for 1500 years were Catholic.

those criticisms involve the anti-Scriptural beliefs and practices of the RCC,

Just a cotton-pickin minute here! That statement assumes (yes, big mistake to "assume") that the beliefs and practices of the "RCC" -- a shorthand meaning Catholic Church -- are somehow anti-Scriptural. The author of this "assuming" post has not established anything of the kind.

whereas the "strong language" you seem to employ is simply name-calling.

Heh. Makes no sense.

There's no core to your argument. No discussion of faith, practices, beliefs, perspectives, ideology, theology, etc.

Likewise, no core to your argument. No discussion of faith, practices, beliefs, perspectives, ideology, theology, etc. Pot kettle black, as usual.

This is a typical Dr. Eckleburg post which makes no actual argument, but simply makes unsupported assertions with no actual reasoning involved.

[Quix]

INDEED.

However, no doubt a new shipment out of the sky [or UFO’s?] of White Hankys from their Ishtar Stand-in Goddess is supposed to make all things well, regardless.

Or, perhaps that PLUS many dozen more bead fondlings ought to do the trick . . .

unless they have to add several $1,000’s worth of Purgatory extortions.

[Cronos]

The difference which is pretty clear to anyone reading this thread is that when Christians criticize the Rabid Calvinist Cult , those criticisms involve the anti-Scriptural beliefs and practices of the Rabid Calvinist Cult, whereas the "strong language" you seem to employ is simply name-calling. There's no core to your argument. No discussion of faith, practices, beliefs, perspectives, ideology, theology, etc.

Good points -- the Rabid Calvinist Cult the OPC is devoid of all beliefs, pracitises, anything -- it keeps true to its communist nature