Search results

Yeah, you haven't addressed the argument, and you're not going to, because you know you have no answer. Your position is completely indefensible. I have to do some good deeds now--it's how God saves me (at least we can agree on that point). LOL! Me doing good IS God justifying me (Judges 7:2+...

LOL I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means--here, you would have be arguing that Paul "implicitly" (not "explicitly") identifies Mary as the New Eve (of course, he doesn't argue that at all). Just imagine if Paul had compared Mary to the Church in 2 Co 11:3--it would be an...

Let me show you an example of what I am looking for : "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false because x, y and z." "This is false, because x, y and z."

Quote my argument, then, step by step, show how it is wrong.

No, it doesn't matter, because the argument is that the Church would be the only valid candidate for being New Eve--if you wanted to argue, after that is established, what the definition of "the Church" is, that would be another argument altogether.

You can deal with my entire argument when you please--quote the argument, then address what is being said.

At this point, I don't know it would matter which Church, just that it is the Church--ie, the Church Christ said He would build, and which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Nope, you didn't demonstrate that the constituent parts of the argument were false. Quote what I said, and, one by one, demonstrate the argument is false.

Quote where you dealt with the argument put forward in the OP.

No, actually, you didn't engage with my argument, falsifying its constituent parts, demonstrating its incoherence.

You're free to interact with my argument when you please.

You haven't interacted with my views at all, you've just regurgitated what ever your Church has regurgitated into your throat. When you feel up to it, I welcome your interaction with my argument.

We're 8 pages into the discussion, and you STILL have no answer to the OP--you are chronically off topic, because you can't deal with the topic, but you can't just let it slide, because that would make Catholicism look bad, so you pretend to discuss when you really have nothing to say.

OK Since you're not interested in the discussion, you can bow out--no one is forcing you to pretend to have thoughts about the matter or have a discussion with those (non-existent) thoughts.

Nope, I knew you'd do that, so I already said I don't want to see a bunch of lazy copy-pasting, but actually engaging with my argument, with its individual parts, dismantling it, piece by piece. Demonstrate its incoherence.

Nope, the topic is about how Mary is not New Eve. You have no way of disproving my assertion, so you want to change the topic to some other argument you think you have better odds of winning--not that you can win that argument, it's just you feel better without the pressure of the actual topic...

I invite you to demonstrate that my argument is not true, but that yours is true--this doesn't involve copying and pasting large swathes of speculations about how Mary is the New Eve, it involves attacking the parts of my argument.

LOL! This is my thread, and I set the topic--ie, "I see you refuse to answer my questions" applies to you. You are incapable of honesty, only deceptive tactics (eg, the aforementioned)--but I guess you're not to blame, since that's what has been sown into you by your church (deceptive tactics...

You desperately want to change the topic because you can't answer the actual topic--Mary as New Eve is an error--and I'm not going to let that happen.

According to the evidence--which evidence you are powerless to respond to.