[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have not demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the historical underpinnnings of the Old and New Testaments, facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic. You have not demonstrated the inner workings of the Documentary Hypothesis, a knowledge of archaeology, a thorough understanding of Greek philosophy and the outgrowths through the Catholic Church, a working knowledge of the textual criticism, William James, Gadamer, linguistic analysis, professional historian standards, or anything to indicate you are necessarily classically trained in empiricism.

I don't qualify under all those requirement, though I'm trying. Unless you can do that, it is a misrepresentation that you are devoted to logic and order. Your study is as haphazard as the next person, not a logical and thorough canvassing of the field. So spare us with your logical declarations. Other than reciting the rote words of disaffection, demonstrate your eruditiion in academic fields that matter.

I wouldn't ask Taq to know everything before he decided what course was best for him. He made a decision based on what information he had and the knowledge he had acquired-- what more can we ask of any man, but to do what they feel is right?