Intercessory prayer is pointless

[RobbyPants]

it would be IF you were the man who had the power to set the standard for mudding dry wall. That's the thing here you are not taking into account. Not only did Jesus not only show any other way of praying he modeled his prayer in the garden of gethsemane before his trial after what he has shown so now he is in a tight spot, he wants to be set free of the burden of the coming cross, but in the end follows the pattern and repeat that the Father's will be done here not his own!
...

What you're saying would only address what I said if and only if Jesus had also explicitly identified that as the only way to pray. He never did that, ergo, there are anywhere from zero to infinity other valid ways to pray. We simply haven't been given enough information, and you're acting as though we have.

This is how we define sets. It's a very common intersection of math and logic. It's axiomatically true. You don't get to argue against it because it goes against your world view.

That's not true. You guys default to no true scotsman so quickly you do not understand the meaning anymore. With no true scotsman in order for the identification of its logical fallacy to be valid there can not exist rules on the nature of a true scotsman. EG not true scotsman like porridge.. There is no rule that says a 'true scotsman must ot like porridge. however if there is a clear set of rules defining what is and what is not a scotsman, then the fallacy does not apply if said 'man' breaks the rules.

Here in order to be forgiven by Christ found in the bible you must follow the Doctrine set by Christ and his followers found in the bible. that is how a church is defined "if two or more Gather in my Name I will be there also." So if two men try and worship God yet their efforts might only amount to a hill of beans when compared to some lifer at some mega church, those beans flaws and all are just as valid before God than a life spent in a mega church. (parable of the workers underlines this point)

The problem is, everything you said after that part relies on one particular interpretation of the Bible. No one has ever been able to prove that their interpretation is the correct one. If one brand of Christianity is based on one person's epistemology on how to interpret the Bible, it is impossible to evaluate that brand as more or less valid than any other. You are so caught up in your own preconceptions of what Christianity is, that you cannot see your hypocrisy in claiming your views as correct and others as false.

That's what a No True Scotsman is; it's just you employing special pleading to define things to fit your world view.

Again, you don't get to argue against logic or definitions because you don't like them.