SteveR wrote:
Corvus oculum corvi non eruit

Adriel wrote:
One of Satan's tasks during the last six thousand years has been to make Christianity look bad and thus discourage people from joining the church.

Presby wrote:
I believe they use both methods Paedo and Credo. I obey only the Scriptural method of Covenant paedobaptism.

SteveR wrote:
I have a difficult time trusting an institution that thinks the time between Sept 2001 and now is 17 years can conduct a statistically significant poll

Does anyone here understand the difference between the Pope and the Black Pope? They are not one and the same.

SteveR comes on here and states plainly RCC dogma and is accused of being a Jesuit (not sure why when he is speaking plainly and openly confessing an RCC position).

I come on here and state plainly Protestant dogma and am accused of being a Romanist in disguise (i.e. acting Jesuitically).

This appears to say more about the commenters than their subjects.

ladybug wrote:
This convo started with my asking you if you posted with other monikers. You evaded that by simply stating you have used many.

My words "you are not wrong" would not be interpreted by any sober minded reader as "Your words appear to state you are in disagreement ..."

You are being contentious without a cause.

ladybug wrote:
No 'bearing false witness', just stating what you implied....

ladybug wrote:
To Philadelphia,
You state "How many questions do I have to answer before you answer just one?
If plain answers that agree with you make me a Romanist in disguise (aka Jesuit), what would that make you?"
You have twisted my question beyond it's intent.

I have given you several plain answers, but you still have not answered my first question to you.

ladybug wrote:
especially in light of the fact that you claim Rome's overriding of God's word concerning marriage isn't devilish.

Christopher000 wrote:
...only insofar as one handle is used per topic/conversation. Otherwise, I personally view multiple handles within the same conversation to be nothing more than sneaky attempts to make it appear as though friends are popping by to strengthen a case, or to voice "their" agreement and/or disdain over whatever and whoever.

ladybug wrote:
Perhaps before we continue our discussion Philadelphia, would you mind responding to my prior question? What are two or three of the most recent monikers you've used?
Also, you said you've used many, is 'stever of mt. zion' one of your monikers?
Sister JA, before you respond to 'Philadelphia', you might want to wait for them to answer my question concerning monikers. We don't know if we are dealing with a Romanist in disguise....

ladybug wrote:
Also, you said you've used many, is 'stever of mt. zion' one of your monikers?

"You are not wrong"

to

"RC apologists" ?

JuneAnnette wrote:
RC apologists are engaging in what they do best . . double talk.

ladybug wrote:
Sister JA,
Thank you for the explanation on the devilsh origin of the RCC's 'annulment'.

JuneAnnette wrote:
SteveR is a master at deflection . .

SteveR wrote:
JohnY is real, not a troll or any of your other accusations. And the fact he is real, drives you crazy

I would regard Lurker's original question as ill-advised but well intended. In its full context he clearly did not regard John Yurich as an "ignorant autistic person" or anything close to it but on the contrary he displayed a degree of compassion and understanding.

He explicitly states that his question is not meant as a put down or an insult. Specifically, it was so that there would be understanding in how JY's comments would be perceived/received.

SteveR, having dug out a partial old quote, is profoundly misrepresenting it. We should also note that Lurker wondered if JY was savant, which would be indicative not just of high intelligence, but genius level intelligence. Hard to interpret that as an intended insult.