I received my PhD and was voted by my profs and classmates into the WHO’S WHO thing between 1978 and 1980.
I have no intention of being more specific than that.
Folks can take my perspective and comments about what in my background contributes to such a perspective at face value, or not.
If deep rooted, ?life-long? anger, hostility, bias, attitude, education, associations, dreams, fantasies or whatever precludes such an attitude or perspective on my perspective, then I have no recourse but to accept that. Goes with the territory.
But you are welcome to continue to poke away in whatever way(s) prove cathartic, or not, for you.
Getting personal aren't we?
I say again: YOU brought up your background to explain your evident preference for ad hominem responses over actually dealing with the argument.
Evidently the psychologically and spirit-filled view is that it is okay, even a duty for you to mock elements of OUR faith and practice and to call us defensive when we respond to childishly repeated attacks and perseverative incantations of Scripture. However responding to YOUR arguments is "poking". YOU can say "magicsterical" and the rest because you are only trying to get us to cast off the shackles of superstitious Romanism. You're only trying to help! (God protect me from such help.) But it's poking and the manifestation of seething anger if WE poke back
Thus Ph.D. disease raises its ugly head, "YOU can't disagree with ME! I have a doctorate! I do as I please and give account to no one! I make the rules!"
In your studies, between the space aliens and whatnot, did you find a place where someone establishes the equivalence of
(A) a gulf fixed between the no-longer-in-the-flesh Lazarus and Abraham on the one hand and the ditto "Dives", a gulf over which communication IS possible but travel is not ...
with
(B) A gulf fixed between the living and the dead over which communication is not possible.
You were assuring us that God Himself told us there was the gulf described in (b) but you only offered (A). So I need some evidence that two things so seemingly different are in fact the same thing.
Of course, my request for back up to your argument may be seen as hostile. Not much I can do about that. Projective techniques and all, y'know ...
Folks can take my perspective and comments about what in my background contributes to such a perspective at face value, or not.
Okay, let's see if I get this: We should take at face value what you say to justify your not taking what we say at face value. May we know why the rules which you apply to us do not apply to you, or is "this knowledge too much for us" (as the Psalmist says ...)?