Nah, it confirms the flawed nature of man, as asserted by the RCC. The Church has done its penance in private as demanded by the Bible, and purified its function as god’s conduit, to the greatest extent humanly possible.
There is no such claim.
As has been elaborated at length Paul's claim to be of god's inspiration not human is an assertion of divine authority. The basis of all Christian variation and the internecine Christian conflict going back to the 1st century. Diffe3nces in interpretation, leading to the Council Of Nicaea. Christian violence in the empire wsa out of control and Constantine needed to end it,
All irrelevant.
Prove it.
So, it is for the sake of intellectual honesty that you attribute a position to me without caring to justify your attribution or, in the alternative, without caring to acknowledge an error on your part?
QED - Pearl makes a pivot.
Huh? I did not pivot. I pointed out that, when you attribute a position to me without even being bothered with any need for justification, you are not being intellectually honest. I pointed out that, when you realize that you have erroneously attributed a position to me but are unwilling to acknowledge such an error, you are not being intellectually honest.
I have made many points, and you have not engaged with any of them. It is one thing to not understand what I have said, but failure to understand does not justify erroneously attributing positions to me without engaging for the purpose of clarification or improved understanding.
That is plainly false. Playing devil's advocate is a legitimate way of questioning thoughts and expressions. In order to understand the devil's advocate point, it is necessary to have an understanding about logic which, evidently, is currently beyond you. That said, I have not been playing devil's advocate.
You started this thread with a plagiarism claim posited by DBT. That was addressed. NHC denied there was a plagiarism claim and then had to admit that there was, in fact, just such a claim which NHC had to admit was a flawed claim.
Yet another ambiguous statement on your part. If you understood the relationships between possibility, actuality, understanding, and expression, and if you used awareness of those relationships when expressing yourself, you would not so often resort to ambiguity - except on purpose, when ambiguity would serve your purpose of not acknowledging alternative perspectives and understandings.
I have once again shown that you do indeed ignore the emotive when you refuse to address and take account of its scope.
Dodging?!?!?!?! That would be funny were it not so very sad and sadly desperate.
In fact, I called it terrible. But I also indicated how you can recognize a deficiency which you had not noticed previously. Hence, it was no dodge.
Well, you will recall that I recommended approaching "Paul's letter as a love letter". That is better than any analogy. Analogies introduce differences, variables which are unnecessary and wholly avoidable if you stick with the fuller context in which Paul's letter was written.
For instance, with regards to my response above, instead of saying "removed", it seems to me that you avoid introduction of an unneeded variable by simply saying anathema: "Anyone pushing a contrary policy will be anathema." Of course, you could otherwise say: "Anyone pushing a contrary policy is anathema."
You do not need the "affectionate". That "affectionate" really does not capture the sense of love which relates to the letter to the Galatians; in fact, that "affectionate" tends to distract from the sense of love which relates to the letter to the Galatians. That love clearly goes beyond affection.
And this is a point where your analogy diverges too much to work. Your “comes directly from the Board” is utterly distinct from how Paul refers to the supposedly divine inspiration experience after which his understanding came to be developed by Paul himself. Your “comes directly from the Board” is presented as an imposition, but Paul's relationship with the Galatians was not an imposed one. Rather, its development culminated in a shared spirit, an alike heart and mind, a shared heart and mind. That indicates how Paul's letter was a love letter and how it is that your email is not a similar love email.
Uh, you missed something. I said, "I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a business email as if it were a love letter", and I could have gone on from there, and my points would be the same."
Or “shared heart and mind” regards a relevant context aspect which you failed to consider with regards to an emotive which could be interpreted as polemic but which was only emotive regardless of how it seemed. It doesn't really matter, because, whether emotive and not polemic, whether polemic and not emotive, whether emotive and polemic, Paul's message remains the same: righteousness, love, and the absence of imposition.
Your "face of the text" has been shown to be insufficient in itself to establish actuality even if the polemic is actual. Your "face of the text" fails to consider the context which is relevant and beyond the text. The polemic as "functionally inert" follows from Paul's message remaining the same whether the polemic is possible, whether the polemic is actual, whether the polemic is demonstrably non-actual.
It is a shame that your first inclination is to regard righteousness and love as (mere) feelings. But that is not important. The fact that Paul teaches about righteousness and love as incompatible with imposition is sufficient reason for you to have considered the polemic as other than assuredly actual. Not that it ultimately matters, because Paul's message remains the same even if the polemic is actual. Paul's message is unaffected even if the polemic is actual.
I have never stepped around the issue. Your "must" is erroneous for multiple reasons, but this reason is itself sufficient to put the lie to your "must": Paul's message remains the same even if the polemic is actual, and that is because Paul does not use the polemic as warrant; rather, warrant is provided by his reasoning - exactly as would be expected were you to consider enough context: Paul often stressed the importance of the development of understanding, and that is also a matter which is apart from imposition.
