Reformed Rob writes:
it is irrational to accept certain parts of the Bible and not others.
You're not paying attention. I said we're not necessarily "accepting"
any of the Bible. We're discussing what it
says, not its truth value.
... you still have the problem of the Gospel writers and the apostles accepting Paul as a genuin apostle qualified to speak the gospel. Their imprimateur negates you.
Not at all. Their imprimatur has no more inherent value than that of Peter Cottontail.
This passage is about the rich man's sin as sucessfully demonstrated previously not a teaching about how all believers handle the poor.
You didn't "successfully" demonstrate that at all. The passage clearly talks about
what must be done (sell and give) - not
why it must be done.
I sucessfully showed that Mark made it clear that it is those who trust in riches who cannot enter heaven not the rich in general....
Once again, you overestimate your own success. It's not enough to convince yourself of what you already believe. I have polled the choir and even they don't swallow your sermon.
Thanks for your concern but I had a scholarship for the #1 Ranked intercollegiate debate team.
Congratulations.
I debate based on your demeanor and what I perceive as your ability - not on your resume.
I will trust the audience if any, who reads these posts to judge who came out on top.
My fan club is out there.
I have forgotten more about argumentation and logic and logical fallacies than most here will ever know.
That's okay. I have a short memory too.
... thanks for the engagement.
I like you too, but I'd hardly say we're "engaged".
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC