I wrote:……..”Since you bring this passage of Scripture up Bradley, and then ask RR to “So did Jesus come to bring peace or not?” Please tell you what you believe this Scripture to mean?”

I would like to hear your answer Bradley.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Why ask someone what they meant when they made it so CLEAR. I’m sure Bradley has read the posts, so he could comment if it was his nature.

I asked Bradley this question in post 10:

“Not one person has used that word to define another persons mental capacity or ability on this thread. Are not opinions allowed to be posted whether or not you find them acceptable to whatever standards you are standing on at the moment?”

NO ANSWER as yet!

Report comment to moderator

A request for clarification is generally more likely to foster understanding than a caustic accusation. Imagine that.

Report comment to moderator

I don’t need an explanation as to what was intended with the remark Bradley made to RR, I understood it completely.

When someone says “ignorant of” it makes CLEAR the person has no reason to comment or debate the issue according to the person who used the term “ignorant of” since in their mind the other person isn’t worthy to speak on the subject – It’s a haughty term, used by those who aren’t able to speak in a decent way to another person exaggerating their knowledge while disrespecting someone else.

Then there was “because you are exhaustively ignorant” – That doesn’t say ‘much’ for the person making such a statement.

Report comment to moderator

However, I still do think we should avoid the word “ignorant”, since it is a hot button kind of word.

Report comment to moderator

Just finished O’Brien’s article. A few thoughts:
Alas, I find myself in agreement with a few folks here…you perhaps should have waited a couple of days to cool off before posting this thing because it’s coming on really strong…in a bad way. O’Brien’s theology throughout the article is wretched, for example, giving you a perfect opportunity to gently, graciously extend to him Christ’s right fist of fellowship by correcting him on this (the paragraph concerning the precise portion of Christ’s incarnation we are to imitate left me nauseous…methinks I know why you saw red!).
However, O’Brien’s line about Eldridge being the first to popularize is valid. Your point is also correct, but let’s face it: even a graduated seminarian like myself is more familiar with Eldridge than the guys you referenced. They may have been first, but Eldridge registered on the cultural radar, and that’s what matters.
O’Brien is reacting against hyper-masculinity, perhaps due to deep-seated fears of his own, and this results in poor journalism in his article, as well as nauseating theologizing. Likely he’ll get the eBook thrown at him online by those in the know.
You, however, have the opportunity to browbeat him in love, winsomely. After all, when such as Victoria is lecturing you on rudeness, it is a very masculine thing to heed the fairer sex (as long as no one is going to accuse me of being a chauvinist!).
And it is not so strong a thing to do as to (rightly) correct Serious George in so the manner demonstrated. It weakens the excellent points you made.
O’Brien wrote something somewhat hideous. Your response, while stronger, should not be reactively hideous, but instead leading us to agreement with you, since your points are more valid.
I trust this will edify and bless you, good sir!

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Instead, you misspell a word that I spelled correctly, placing yours in scare quotes as if it were mine. And then you imply, in a forum where most regular participants use screen names, that I am somehow cowardly for following this practice. So I guess we’re done here; this seems rather petty to me.

I will do my best to read the second installment with an open mind, even saddled as I am with exhaustive ignorance.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator