of course not. my silence means I'd given up discussing this with you. sharing information and having a healthy debate is quite a bit different than what you have done here. post number 19 was really a doozy....
I respond directly to absurd statements you'd made about the church, and according to you, I am "muddying" the issue. I am "deflecting."
and "why the derisive tone," ... as if I am the only person here that's used one. as if I was the one that began using one here. as if I had used a derisive tone at all.
Felicity, I asked you for evidence. you gave none, other than the words of Christ. hasn't it been obvious that we have an honest difference of opinion here about what the words of Christ mean? isn't that what this debate ought to be about?
You say, "Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced?"
LOL, no, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that I have a different opinion of what the passages mean. (just as "I am the bread" wasn't exactly literal.) and I'm also suggesting that you have no evidence to back up your opinion. hence these ridiculous tactics you employ.
it became clear in post #19 that you assume one meaning. RCC's doctrine comes first, and your beliefs follow.
the word for eat may be used in non-literal ways:
John 4:32-34 "But he said unto them, I have meat to
eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him [ought] to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
chew on that, Ms. "I am well versed on this topic."
I hope you don't choke on it. I hope you find humility, and learn to be more objective.