“You profess to be against the condemnation of any believer in Jesus Christ”
I am.
“While condemning believers in Jesus Christ as modern day Pharisees”
I did no such thing. I was speaking specifically about these “open religion” threads.
“It is thus clear that, like a liberal”
Fallacy of false knowledge. If you knew anything about me, which you don’t, you’d know that I’m many things but a being a liberal isn’t one of them.
“and typical Catholic defender.”
Ah, do tell. Please elaborate at length what a “typical Catholic defender” is. I enjoy reading a good stereotypical comedy. :)
Wishing you & yours a blessed day, every day.
While reading a good stereotypical,
I found Catholic reasoning elliptical.
With words oh so bold,
they’ll spout whatever they’re told;
but really; is it BIBLICAL?
If you would avoid apparent duplicity, you should have said I am against the condemnation of any believer in Jesus Christ, except those modern day Pharisees who post on these open forum threads.
Of course, you can falsely charge a believer with making a false statement without being a modern day Pharisee, but when they document your error then they are such.
Fallacy of false knowledge. If you knew anything about me, which you don’t, you’d know that I’m many things but a being a liberal isn’t one of them.
Speaking of logical fallacies, I was not referring to you as a political or social liberal, nor would i even say your wish that pot be legal everywhere necessarily makes you one (and i feel compassion for your condition), but as is obvious, i was saying that you were responding " like a liberal."
Ah, do tell. Please elaborate at length what a “typical Catholic defender” is. I enjoy reading a good stereotypical comedy. :)
It means in part just what I said, and which has been quite apparent in the years I have been active on the RF, and which others will also testify you. However, I have never encountered you on the RF, despite being very active here by the grace of God (16,000+ replies, almost all on RF open treads).