Appreciate your input. I'll talk with Cruciform about it.
I don't know where you obtained this quotation, but it certainly wasn't from any of my posts. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
The quotation is my own, Cruciform, and I regret using the word idiot. Is it possible to interact with you without your using the canned response regarding man-made, non-Catholic sects?
God will save whom He will regardless.
It is not a "canned response," but rather a well-thought-out and meaningful one. Every word of it has significance. Which term(s) in my description would you dispute, and why?
No ad hominem whatsoever, but merely a straightforward observation. Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:7
Do "fine servants of the Lord" deliberately lie, misrepresent others' beliefs, and bear false witness against their neighbor" (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 13:5; 19:5)? :think:
Now go ahead and indicate exactly where in this text the term "her" is in any way identified with the Catholic Church, rather than merely the ancient city of Rome itself. Post your proof.
Pr 26:4
:thumb: He has rescued many people out of the Roman Catholic religion (Jud 11 :burnlib
.
No need, since my statement simply does not meet the definitional criterion for an "ad hominem" argument. It's an objective logical tenet. (Eph. 4:14)Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).
He has rescued many people out of the subjective interpretive chaos and factionalism of Protestantism (Jude 11)---myself among them. God's grace be praised!:thumb: He has rescued many people out of the Roman Catholic religion (Jud 11 :burnlib
That's what I thought: no proof whatsoever. Thus, your bigoted and ignorant interpretation of Rev. 18:4 is shown to be exactly that.
[Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).
each: The reader will decide for himself (Eph 4:14). :idea: Your religion linger: tried very hard to murder Jews and believers :listen: but you will not succeed (Mt 16:18). You're going to be bummin' soon :burnlib: (Re 18:8). opcorn:
...and he will do so either rightly or wrongly, so your statement means exactly nothing. Shall I quote from a textbook on logic regarding the proper definition of an "ad hominem argument"? (Eph. 4:14)