Apparently, you keep digging yourself deeper by citing references to your absurdity by claiming that I am making a “strawman’s argument” when it is the logical consequence of distinguishing “your” beliefs against many mainline Protestant denominations that ordain married gay and lesbian pastors by suggesting “we” do not regard them as Christian.
I would think you are intelligent enough to know what the term “strawman’s argument” means and that this is not enough to deflect from the inherent absurdity of your references to “we” suggesting your know what distinguishes authentic Christian beliefs than those that aren’t? Go tell that to the Joel Osteens, Rev. Sharptons, Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Billy Grahams of this world who have made family fortunes with their heresies.
So the truth is not up for grabs but humans make errors? Seriously, where do you get this stuff from?
So the early Church fathers who for two hundred years sorted through various written fragments and assembled the canonical texts in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 possibly got their inclusions and arrangements wrong because they were “humans” and “humans make errors”?
So Peter and his successors who were commanded by Christ to “Go forth and teach..” may also have got it wrong because they were “humans”? And whatever they taught is shaky as quicksand because they were “humans” and references to “building” a “Church” on a “rock” and the “gates of hell shall never prevail against thee” are all nonsense despite a vast constellation of history, tradition, the writings and actions of the early Church fathers, the saints, and martyrs all attesting to the fact that it is the ONE Catholic Church that Christ established?
Sincerely, and with no ill-feeling, I don’t think we can can any further regard your posts as serious. Logical inferences, conclusions from the comments you make are are dubbed as “strawman’s argument” as if this were some magical wand to wave away the sheer absurdities that arise from what you write.
>Sincerely, and with no ill-feeling, I don’t think we can can any further regard your posts as serious. Logical inferences, conclusions from the comments you make are are dubbed as “strawman’s argument” as if this were some magical wand to wave away the sheer absurdities that arise from what you write.<
My goodness - this like reading a tragic parody. [shakes head]
“Sincerely, and with no ill-feeling, I don’t think we can can any further regard your posts as serious. Logical inferences, conclusions from the comments you make are are dubbed as “strawman’s argument” as if this were some magical wand to wave away the sheer absurdities that arise from what you write.”
I concede DeprogramLiberalism, you were correct. I can’t and won’t try to explain the posting behavior.
Steelfish, Based on my previous conversations with you, I expect better. I wish you well, but your posts have become histrionic, filled with logical fallacies and repetitive of slogans. Real conversations do not happen in that environment.
best always.