You're an elephant. I have a trillion dollars. Also, I'm Jesus Christ returned in the flesh to finish what I started.

Do you see how easy it is to argue by making unsupported assertions? Anyone can do that, and it's worthless. The trick is to back up what you say with evidence and with arguments. Can you show that I commit any of those fallacies or errors?

You say I knowingly confuse the text of Romans with the conduct of many later Christians. On the contrary, I explain that relationship by reminding readers that Christians have been reading Romans for centuries, and I argue by analogy with how children mimic the habits of their parents, due to their years of close contact.

In short, Christians who think Romans is the most important part of the Bible are bound to pick up Paul's dubious habits. Where's the confusion? There's just a straightforward causal explanation of the passing on of obnoxiousness in Christian circles.

You don't want to call those obnoxious fundamentalists "Christians," but that's just the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Also, the balls on this guy! I can do better? This coming from the guy whose comment is worthless because it consists entirely of a list of arguments by baseless, stand-alone assertions? Do you really think that gaslighting is going to work on me? Your condescension is only mildly amusing to me. You've presented no challenge to my criticisms of Paul's theology that merit refutation.