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.

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):

Incidentally, at least the T in the TNKh is usually published with the original language on one side, and the local translation on the other, which helps keep the translator honest.

Oy, am I ever _unobservant_, sometimes![1] I had merely memorise 'Tanakh' as if it were an atomic word, and stupidly never noticed (until just now when you pointed this out) that is -- obviously -- an acronym formed by smashing together the initial letters of Torah + Nevi'im + Ketuvim. D'oh! I'm reminded of my second week on the kibbutz in 1980: Evenings and on Saturdays, we-lot of volunteer workers sometimes had a bit of a particular Carmel Vineyard red wine, and I found it pretty tasty. Since I have family who own acreage in the Napa Valley wine country, I was curious what this was, i.e., what particular grape varietal. Using my then-pathetic tourist Hebrew, I painfully worked out what the bottle's label said the _type_ of wine this was. Transliterating, it said 'adom atik'. I slowly worked this out: adom => red atik => dry Right, fine. Okey-dokey, then. So much for exotic varietal character. [1] 'You can always tell a Norwegian, but you can't tell him much.'

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):

"Evangelical" is not a term Rick invented; Rick is using it in the well-understood sense as seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Christian

This is a distinct meaning from "Christians who evangelize", in the same way that "Anglican" is not the same as "angular".

That Wikipedia page is useful for gleaning the interesting point that self-described 'evangelical Christians' in the USA (overwhelmingly concentrated in the Bible Belt, and in aggregate comprising about 25% of the USA population) are _doctrinally diverse_. As the page says, all they have in common _necessarily_ is the odd notion of being 'born again' and the core creed tenet of salvation by grace through faith. All the disturbing stuff about racist foundation, traces of cruel attitudes left over from the days of slavery, rejection of what British Christians tend to call 'Christian conscience' (social good works helping the poor and afflicted, etc.) is true of _some_ American evangelical Christians, but certainly does not extrapolate to the entire aggregate group, i.e., most certainly not 25% of the USA population. You'll note that this is the sort of problem I warned about. The upthread cited author implied that various things were shared among evangelical Christians in the former Southern Confederacy, but that is an obviously overbroad extension to _everyone_ there who self-applies that label characteristics that only some actually hold.

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):

It's substantiable, see e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix

Well, sure, but it's very much a Not Nice, decidedly catty thing to say. I usually reserve my characterisation of Christianity as a 'Middle-Eastern death cult' for sideways slaps delivered onto dumbasses already concentrated on ranting about how Muslims are inherently a threat and suspect of being terrorists, etc. It produces a bracing effect when I nod and say 'Sure, we of course need to expel all members of Middle-Eastern death cults. Let's start with the Lutherans.' I cherish the look of confusion when I said that to my Orthodox Jewish friend Ruben Safir (of Brooklyn), for example. Quite priceless. Truth: Until just a couple of years ago, I had absolutely no idea what the word 'crucifix' properly referred to. I had just assumed that it was a synonym for 'cross'. I was a bit appalled when I learned what it denotes. Sheesh, that's really pretty disgusting, and gory. Seriously, we want to have a miniature reproduction of a human body being tortured and killed on the wall? That's a bit sick. The late Lenny Bruce, master of black humour, observed: 'If Jesus had lived in the 20th Century, we'd now have little parochial school children running around with model electric chairs hanging from their necks.' (My wife Deirdre comments: 'He wasn't wrong!')

Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):

(Luther were from the HRE, i.e. a Teuton;

Par excellence -- but his _cult_ was Middle-Eastern. Thus my taunt.