Quoting Michael Scott (luv@inoz.net):
Amazing that you expect ME to read YOUR post in the context and humour in which it was "intended", yet you fail to do the same for me.
Amazing how many hapless errors you have managed to cram into a single sentence. (1) I have (and had) no expectations of how you would read my posting I just now reminded you about the context in order to remind you about that context because I think it likely that you missed that. (You're welcome. Please don't fall all over yourself attempting to express gratitude.) Therefore, the moral equivalency you just attempted to invent, like most examples of same in Internet discusion, is bogus and a mirage. (I will gladly assume error in this particular, rather than any attempt at deceptive polemics.) (2) Nowhere had I said anything concerning humour. (Were I really mean, I might point out the _unintentional_ variant you are lately stuck in.) (3) You have somehow failed to specify anywhere _specific_ where I failed some alleged duty towards you. Additionally, I cannot help notice that I nowhere sought discussion with you in the first place. The first time I even became aware of your good self was you running screaming into the conversation I was having with Trent Buck after pointedly correcting Russell's error, professing theatrical great offence from my merely stating why, in my view, evangelicals (on the Southern Baptist model) differ jarringly from all normal Christian denominations in my experience (and utterly lack the Nazarene compassionate service mission), and advising Trent Buck of a different way to read the Bible that might render it more digestible for him since he's always bounced off it previously.
You did more than just advise Trent another way of looking at it.
Wrong. That is exactly what I did. I am not going to argue with you. See the posting and actually bother to read it. Attentively. It's really not that difficult.
Given that it IS a "religious" text, written in the first case for the Jewish people, and later for Christians, maybe it should be interpreted in the context in which it was written, rather than as a history textbook.
Or maybe not. To you, it's a holy book. To me, it's a _book_. Am I obliged to emulate a religionist of the Olympian gods before I am allowed to read Hesiod? Must I think like a Taoist before I am allowed to read the Tao Te Ching? Must I think like an Asatru Viking before I am permitted to read the Eddas? Must I think like a Muslim before I may crack open my Quran? I read my copy of the KJV, and my copy of the Jewish Publication Society English translation of the Tanakh, and my English translation of the Quran, with respect and appreciation. They are all great works. I am not obliged to do so from an inside religionist perspectve; I am utterly lacking in such an obligation. It is one of the glories of a non-theocratic state that I _have_ this freedom, sir. You, for your part, are free to read anything you wish, up to and including the United States Constitution and the Magna Carta, using Christian exegesis as your framing _if you wish_. This is how, in civilised countries including Oz, people are able to coexist peacefully while holding, and not injuring each other concerning, vast fundamental difference of assumptions and perspectives. Me, I think this is A Good Thing. If you differ, I suggest you have many bigger problems than me, because your gripe would seem to put you in conflict with the principles of your country and pretty much the entire Western world -- in all of which, nobody is obliged to adopt someone else's, or anyone's, religious perspective in reading _anything_, including your holy book and all other holy books. I'm surprised I need to explain this to you.
No, I'm not.
Well, you sure as hell seemed to be. If _I_ came on expressing my opinion of something Christian,
I might be evangelising, but be seen as being evangelical in your eyes.
This is obviously false. I was very clear, as was the article author, as was Russell, about what was denoted by the word 'evangelical'. You know something? I think you really need to back off and consider that you just spouted off without thinking clearly. Tell you what: I'll stop backing you into a corner about spouting off, and you at least consider just shutting up for a bit and reconsidering. 'Kay?
Either way, it would probably not be accepted by most of the audience.
Not just bullshit, actual obfuscatory polemical fog.
Here's where we might be confusing each other. Evangelising is INSTRUCTED in the New Testament.
{citation needed} I could cite probably a half-dozen instances where Jesus advises people to _live_ their religious principles and stop breast-beating about devotedness to the Law. (Jesus was Jewish speaking overwhelmingly to his fellow Jews.) But you are haring off after a red herring. I said absolutely nothing critical of evangelising -- something I've already pointed out so many times I'm getting really tired of repeating myself. Your pretending as if I had is not just irrational, but actually something about which you should, by now, be actively embarrassed about.
You're putting labels on different "types of Christians", where I'm saying that some who identify as "Christian" are not following the teachings of the Bible.
No, this is simply flat-out false. I did nothing of the kind. I can only suggest that you bother to read it again, and this time think before emoting.
Label me with anything you like.
Why the hell would I? I wasn't talking about you in any way. Nor was I talking _to_ you in any way. You merely leaped screaming anger into a conversation I was having, not in any way about you, and not involving you. Which is frankly more than a bit loony.
I told you WHAT offended me. Not WHO offended me.
Right. You made a mistake. I'm not going to assumpe responsibility for your mistake. Have a great day.