My darker side comes out when I am "discussing" something and my "opponent" fails to appreciate a critical distinction that they either ignore or purposely evade because it is damaging to their inclined view, so reason be damned.
I totally understand. I sometimes feel you do that in discussion, and I get frustrated with you. But again, I've done the same myself in the past.
Honestly, many times I don't follow 100% what you're trying to say because you write in generalities too much (for me, personally). I like specific examples, because it makes the conversation clearer. You might object to something I write and say "Well, you're just contradicting St Thomas". I might be, and you might be correct, but if you don't point out the EXACT contradiction, I'm left to ASSUME what you meant. Especially when multiple points are being discussed, many times I'm left to guess what you mean.
Not your fault. It's just this mode of communication, especially on complex topics, leads to misunderstandings.
As to Denzinger, yes I agree with all of those propositions. Where did you get the list, or how did you put it together? Interesting.
I found it on some catholic site. Yes, I agree with all these propositions as well.
I hope we can reach agreement.
I thought we were in agreement, just misunderstanding each other.
Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 321180 times)