IMJerusha

Dear IMJerusha, What are you doing up so late? You are on EST, eh? I'm in Phoenix, out west. It is past midnight here. Well, hope you have a wonderful Sunday! Make It Count!! God Bring You Joy!!

Oh that's great. I hope they get along.

reaching ?

amazing

Answering the Ridicule of Faith (Recap part two):
"That wasn't aimed at you at all, but at least I can see how you were seeing it now." -- Town Heretic

No, you aimed it at Christians including me. You made that even more clear when you stated in another response a bit later, "The problem with too many zealots, faithful or atheist,..." Zealotry is a hallmark of those within the faith. Stop putting it forth as a negative and looking down your nose at those who exhibit it. You can not address the ridicule of the faith when you ridicule the faith. Well, you can, but it doesn't bode well for you which in turn doesn't bode well for the Body, only proving the point of the atheist while laying another stumbling block before the agnostic. And yes, I know....you disagree. -- IMJerusha

"Zealots to the left of me, zealots to the right of me" -- Town Heretic

"So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." -- Yeshua HaMashiach

Answering the Ridicule of Faith (Recap part one):
"When the behavior of the Body of believers can no longer be distinguished from that of non-believers, something is horribly amiss." -- IMJerusha

"Something that I don't believe is remotely the rule, though I'm sure some zealots will make the same sort of mistakes and assumptions." -- Town Heretic

"I am a zealot for the Lord God and Yeshua and in being a zealot for the Lord, one set apart, I don't make any sort of mistake, error or assumption. I have the greatest hope that one can have and that isn't "remotely the rule," it IS the ONLY rule for eternal life. And if my behavior does not reflect this rule, I am NOTHING." -- IMJerusha

The humorous thing is that you can't see that you have said it over and over again in our exchange. You already have my forgiveness, just not my submission to more of the same. I've simply had enough, so high handed doesn't begin to describe it. I would call it an in your face dismissal!

If I said that you'd see a high handed attempt to put you in your place. If your friendship isn't predicated on taking an honest man at his word then it is an illusion and its loss can mean nothing to me. If your Christianity isn't predicated on the same and forgiving both the intended and unintended slight it is similarly unfathomable to me.

What you are to me is entirely up to you. I've done what I can.

My feelings and my friendship is not an argument for you to win. I meant it when I said "walk away."

I've seen your answer in the thread. I'm not impressed.
It's not supposed to impress you, only show why you thought one thing when I meant another.

There's no way you can state you did not know where my complaint originated. I made it very clear pretty much from the gitgo.
Except I wasn't clear and you didn't quote until the last.
I have always admired your intelligence, please don't play the dolt now or cast another insulting bone my way.
I've always been honest. Please don't call me a liar late in the game because the alternative is understanding you shouldn't have been upset with me over it or now, really.

And I've never said zeal is always suspect, only that it tends to blind. It's like wealth to me. A man can be rich and holy, but he's rare and it takes uncommon consideration to make sure your possessions don't possess. I suppose that's true of nearly anything.

Ah, go and look at my answer on this in the thread. Too bad you didn't talk to me when it happened. Maybe a cautionary tale. I never knew where your complaint originated, because I never meant by what I wrote what you thought I did. You assumed I knew because of the way you read it. See the post. It clarifies what happened.

Edit/add on: the really irritating thing is if I had just added an "s" to "sort" it would have made the correct reading impossible to miss...for the want of a nail then.

Is it just possible you have no real clue what you posted to me?

"When the behavior of the Body of believers can no longer be distinguished from that of non-believers, something is horribly amiss." -- IMJerusha

"Something that I don't believe is remotely the rule, though I'm sure some zealots will make the same sort of mistakes and assumptions." -- Town Heretic

I am a zealot for the Lord God and Yeshua and in being a zealot for the Lord, one set apart, I don't make any sort of mistake or assumption. I have the greatest hope that one can have and that isn't "remotely the rule," it IS the ONLY rule for eternal life. And if my behavior does not reflect this rule, I am NOTHING.

So, yes Town, you have condemned all zeal and you have condemned my zeal. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Lastly (space provisions) it wasn't about your post being worthy or unworthy. If you want to talk baseball in a football thread I'd say the same sort of thing. You had a different idea. I encouraged you to pursue it. I declared my intent not to dissuade you. If you made of that an insult then you need to examine the why of that within yourself. It simply isn't.

Two things, if you weren't a friend we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it doesn't feel like a conversation. It feels like you considering yourself a victim of an attack and me looking around at who might be launching it since it isn't me.

I have never condemned all zeal. I've never condemned you. I've never said to you, "It's too bad you don't agree with God, or scripture, etc." or anything of that sort. And I haven't read you the riot act when you tried it with me.

You said to a friend, "You insulted me." And the friend returned, "Nothing I wrote was meant to." I have on occasion publicly apologized and to people who are not friends where I said something hurtful, meant to say it and recognized the error. I'm not loath to do it. But I am loath to apologize for a thing I didn't do. It would be dishonest to do it. That said, I am sorry that any reading of anything I wrote gave you any pain of any sort. It was never and would never be my aim.

I let my wife read my over our correspondence. She thought you were carrying baggage from earlier and that it came through in the "last straw" and nods to your walking away prior. I hadn't caught that, but it makes sense in relation to you taking a "not the point of the thread and I disagree, but you should make the thread if you want to/I won't try to convince you otherwise" as a slap.

As to what your son read, without a particular quote you're speaking to it's hard to answer. All I've said about your having an opinion on scripture is that I'm not trying to change your mind about it and to distinguish your opinion and my opinion from the thing itself, which you failed to do with the, "I'm sorry you..." response.

I offered sincere commentary/reflection on the condition of the Body both here and elsewhere. You took it personal and slapped not just me but anyone in the Body with more than a lukewarm perspective and told me to start my own thread.
Well, no to the first. It simply was off topic and I actually answered you that if you felt that should be done then you should do it. I didn't agree with the either/or notion and it wasn't the point of the thread. That's not taking a thing personal. Not sure what I could have done differently other than agree and/or change the nature of the thread.

I offered sincere commentary/reflection on the condition of the Body both here and elsewhere. You took it personal and slapped not just me but anyone in the Body with more than a lukewarm perspective and told me to start my own thread. Don't you dare tell me I've never put a face on the insult. For all your intelligence, how many times do I have to put a face on it? Good grief, my 24 year old son read it over my shoulder and recognized it for a burn. My declaration on Scripture was cement for the stand. Am I not allowed to take a stand in Scripture around you? Do you find that unloving somehow? Well, get over it! Deny, deny, deny, admit, deny and then blame me for it? Not just no....

I misread this before my last answer so I still owe you on the point. Here goes...
...it is not for you to determine how I should feel or what I and the Body are "owed" in the face of uncalled for insult.
It isn't for you to determine the best possible reading of scripture for me. It also isn't for you to tell me what I owe you. You can tell me what you think you're owed, but that's different.

I owe friends honesty and the benefit of the doubt. That's why when you came into a thread to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing instead of saying, "You're wrong now suck it up and move on" I said I differed and wouldn't try to dissuade you from following your understanding.

That was my being your friend.

The insult you've never put a particular face on, much like the friends who read it, was never intended. Your declaration on scripture was the first real blow between us, offered I think because you chose not to credit my answer. Is that love?

It isn't for you to determine for me. For yourself? All day long and twice on Sunday and I have no problem with it. I didn't tell you how to think or feel about anything. I literally and repeatedly told you the opposite, that I wasn't attempting to dissuade you.

Else, you told me a few friends concurred with your sense of the earlier remarks. They weren't named. They sat in judgment of my intent. So what your objection is I couldn't begin to say. The word tribunal? In any event, what they read for whatever reason wasn't filled with what they believed re intent. Since I never was told what particularly they or you found offensive, what literal section/quote read that way to anyone it's hard to respond beyond the general understanding of my own intent.

I don't think that addresses what I'm doing. I'm speaking to arguments made ABOUT CHRISTENDOM and CHRISTIANS and made in error or deceptively. And I'm pulling that deception geared to justify and lead others astray out from underneath their feet.

I answered you on the zealot bit and my response. I can't make you accept it. I've given you what you're owed, which is the plain truth of what I meant and what I didn't. Your nameless tribunal was wrong and you remain in error about my intent if you don't accept my response. I won't speak further about it having said all I can.