It isn't a perceived attack. He is bitter and sarcastic towards me all the time. You are coming in on the end of a very long conversation and have no idea.
Is it an unperceived attack, then? Neat trick, responding. I have a pretty good idea of the conversation as it has played out typed on this forum. Not typing along the way doesn't mean I haven't been reading. People will come in where they come in with public fora by the way. Internet is like that.
Yes I use imperfect terms all the time. That doesnt' mean I don't see the near worthlessness of the word Christian. It would have been more accurate to call you anti- (insert specific response to the life and teachings of Jesus here). My thoughts on the term "Christianity" have evolved over time. I have certainly used it in a generic sense in the past for lack of a better word, but more and more I find it to be less-than-useful for accurate communication.
But you didn't and can't "insert specific response to the life and teachings of Jesus here". I understand that's what the term anti-Christian might mean. But then you have to be more coherent (not merely more "precise") about the limits of the word "Christian" rather than saying it's an umbrella word for completely different religions, and thereby anything close to useless.
This is a bizarre backpedalling from the claim of useless for the term "Christian" -- one which with your academic pretensions I'm surprised you didn't notice before this particular descent into the dreaded "incoherence".
But really, without having to unpack that for you further, I'm taken aback that you would say you called me antiChristian in any such context. I think you were lying, and I think this back-pedal is more lying now. On that thread, the life and teachings of Jesus were not even the topic. Really I made two points: 1) I agreed with another poster that Churches would need to distance themselves from some of the things that were happening in the third world -- specifically witch-burning, and 2) thought that what was happening politically in Uganda and the attempts of capitalizing the "crime" of homosexuality was being supported by a particular group of Dominionists, known as "The Family" among other things -- led by Doug Coe -- and indeed this "in the name of" Christianity was a bane.
Now I got called out for being a bit general in saying certain strains of American Protestantism were virulent in these regards. And I posted an apology if I appeared too general, didn't say it was "American Protestantism in general" but pointed out specific groups of actors in the political world.
After that you swooped in with talk of my showing "true colors" as an anti Christian. When I asked if you to be specific about what you disagreed with, you punched out with a "please stop". Because you seem (this is my diagnostic guess, admittedly) to read what you want to read to support your own self-image, as opposed to what is actually written.
Now if this is against the "life and teaching of Jesus," you didn't say so. And I don't think you thought so. So your fevered ego as badge-carrying detective for Jesus is worthy of some ridicule, and your dishonesty about it since is truly contemptible. For you to now claim that I had said anything derogatory toward the teaching or person of Jesus is just a flat out lie. Those things didn't come up
. I went through each item that you might
theoretically have been talking about as "antiChristian", but you couldn't identify any such. It seems to me on this thread, then, you're just re-defining what was a meaningless epithet. (Again, doing even that particularly badly, in light of prior claims to uselessness of the term "Christian").
You just needed to create an "enemy" for some unfathomable reason. Of course I think I'm not anti-Christian at all, especially given my family background and still living family members (many of whom -- people I love and respect and downright need -- talk this apostolic-succession stuff with even more fervor than I've read from you. But I might be antiChristian by some
definition or other. Certainly in terms some follower of Doug Coe might use. I'd accept that insult proudly from some C-Street house resident. But that's not someone being so squirrelly about the use of language, and someone who represents a truly horrifying tradition. That's not what I think you are. Instead we have someone representing a more honorable tradition contemptibly.
I understand you might not care that I think you're a liar. But since the dishonesty is likely with yourself, maybe there's some hope the cognitive dissonance can be examined fruitfully. And if not, sorry -- but at least I will call out the libel where it was personal.
Oh, and clearly I was wrong about the "bigger fish to fry" comment.