And that's the very grovelling I have no intention of doing. Where God opens up an opportunity to share the Gospel, that's worth doing, even if it irritates those who don't like to hear it. Besides, you crashed my conversation, not the other way around. And even that could have led to further adult conversation, but your "arguments" consist of "shut up" and "grrrr." Is that all you've got? I think it is. I am sorry for you. If you had some killer argument that established transubstantiation as truth, that card would have been played by now. Instead, its all about psyops. And I'm pretty sure making it personal, even if used as an avoidance tactic, is contra forum rules. There's a good reason for that. Do you feel you are beyond such limitations? Just curious.
Peace,
SR
“And that’s the very grovelling I have no intention of doing.”
You should look up the definition (and spelling) of the word “groveling.”
“Where God opens up an opportunity to share the Gospel”
You’re not sharing the Gospel. You’re just repeating some very wrong-headed, wrong-hearted misinterpretations of the Bible.
“Besides, you crashed my conversation, not the other way around.”
If you want private conversation, don’t post it in public areas. I’ll go one better than that; if told that a conversation is private, I’ll withdraw.
“but your “arguments” consist[-p] of “shut up” and “grrrr.” Is that all you’ve got?”
How interesting it is that conservatives who argue the wrong side of an issue argue it like a liberal, and not like a conservative.
Here you deny that I have posted hundreds of words of reasoned argument over the past few days. For whose sake do you do this? Not mine, because I know that I posted them. I guess it could only be an attempt to deceive yourself or others. Don’t know; don’t really care.
“I am sorry for you.”
No, you’re not. You are just trying to come up with things to say that will make me feel bad. Boring.
“If you had some killer argument that established transubstantiation as truth, that card would have been played by now.”
I guess that scripture does not count as a killer argument for you. Anyway, I told you that you can discover the truth of the matter for yourself, and you never have replied to that.
“Instead, its all about psyops.”
Every time somebody is arguing against the truth, they come up with that kind of argument sooner or later. BTW, the contraction of “it is” is “it’s,” not “its.”
“And I’m pretty sure making it personal, even if used as an avoidance tactic, is contra forum rules.”
Somebody call the waaambulance.
“There’s a good reason for that.”
That would only be true if the rule were applied intelligently. Instead, you can get away with all kinds of personal insults, just so long as you do a good enough imitation of Oscar Wilde.
You can’t say, “You are a dolt,” but you can say something like, “I would never make a personal comment about an FR poster, but if someone else said “x,” it would be clear that such a person is a coprophagic catamite who is addicted to many disgusting perversions and has the intelligence of a garden slug.” It is clear to everyone that you are indeed talking about a specific FR poster, but because you phrased it in that way, it passes muster. The policy has the benefit of preventing some of the worst excesses, but it does not prevent one from “getting personal,” de facto.
You have gotten personal with me in this oblique manner, and I let it go, so I am not inclined to take your whining seriously.
“Do you feel you are beyond such limitations?”
What would matter to me is what I thought, not what I felt, and what I think is set forth above.
“Just curious.”
Nonsense. You are offended by my apparent belief that I am right and you are wrong, and that if you achieve a better understanding of these matters you will come to agree with me. That’s why you can’t let it go.