I don't think it's logically tenable,
that every time one person disagrees with another person on doctrine,
you can pick out one party of the disagreement,
and just imply he's a pharisee.... just for disagreeing.
You were disagreeing with me just now... so... by virtue of thinking you're right....
I guess that makes you a pharisee?
This doesn't hold up to logic.
And it's silly.
And it's tiring.
And in your analogies, the people you agree with are always represented by Jesus,
and the people you disagree with are always represented by the evil pharisees.
Really, this is just silly and tiring.
that every time one person disagrees with another person on doctrine,
you can pick out one party of the disagreement,
and just imply he's a pharisee.... just for disagreeing.
You were disagreeing with me just now... so... by virtue of thinking you're right....
I guess that makes you a pharisee?
This doesn't hold up to logic.
And it's silly.
And it's tiring.
And in your analogies, the people you agree with are always represented by Jesus,
and the people you disagree with are always represented by the evil pharisees.
Really, this is just silly and tiring.
Should I apologize for pointing it out?
Last edited: