No, that’s true: you didn’t explicitly call a retreat, or ask for explicit “Gospel-lite”... but you *did* say that those who called the author out for his “gay-friendly”, selfishness-laden article were running afoul of the Letter of St. James, and you *did* assume that the FReepers who were calling out the obvious selfishness-laden and politically-liberal-laden article had no interest in “calling back these sinners”... and I don’t see how you could assume that reasonably. I read and re-read their posts, and they said nothing except criticisms of the ARGUMENT and the (rather obvious) ATTITUDE and WORLDVIEW BEHIND the argument. One commenter said that such people were heading for hell, unless they repent (and what reasonable person could argue with that?).
Being admonished will NOT feel good to these people (or to anyone else); we can’t simply see someone get his nose out of joint (or imagine it) and somehow “induce” that the original commenter was being unkind, uncivil, unloving, in violation of James, etc. That’s why some other FReepers (and I, frankly) were starting to wonder whether you were confusing “love, gentleness, and kindless” (which are Godly and Biblical) with “being nice” (which is not).
You obviously mean well, FReind... and I agree with a good deal of what you say. But your suggestions that the other FReepers (to whom you responded earlier, re: James) were somehow in the wrong (or doing things improperly, or violating charity, kindness, etc.) were simply off-target, I think.
Oh, I readily admit that I am prone to mistake, and not particularly a great (or even good) communicator.
Being admonished will NOT feel good to these people (or to anyone else); we can’t simply see someone get his nose out of joint (or imagine it) and somehow “induce” that the original commenter was being unkind, uncivil, unloving, in violation of James, etc. That’s why some other FReepers (and I, frankly) were starting to wonder whether you were confusing “love, gentleness, and kindless” (which are Godly and Biblical) with “being nice” (which is not).
Being admonished doesn't feel good; especially if it steps on the ego.
Like I've said upthread: I was not addressing the author's failings/misconceptions/faulty-reasons, but rather what I perceived as wholesale dismissal of ALL the points the author did bring up due to their use of the LGBQ term. (A term I loathe, btw.) I've had a lot of encounters with authoritarians of various sorts and this is one common method to shut someone down: jump on any imperfection [or technicality] and use that to dismiss everything else; probably to the point where I am oversensitive to it. (Another fun technique authoritarians use to shut you down is to dismiss you if you show emotion [because you're not rational], and to dismiss you if you dispassionately/logically make your case [because it's obviously not important enough for you to be emotionally invested].)
No, that’s true: you didn’t explicitly call a retreat, or ask for explicit “Gospel-lite”... but you *did* say that those who called the author out for his “gay-friendly”, selfishness-laden article were running afoul of the Letter of St. James, and you *did* assume that the FReepers who were calling out the obvious selfishness-laden and politically-liberal-laden article had no interest in “calling back these sinners”... and I don’t see how you could assume that reasonably.
You are right, it was more unreasonable than reasonable on my part; for that I do apologize.
I read and re-read their posts, and they said nothing except criticisms of the ARGUMENT and the (rather obvious) ATTITUDE and WORLDVIEW BEHIND the argument. One commenter said that such people were heading for hell, unless they repent (and what reasonable person could argue with that?).
I don't disagree that people are running headlong into hell; but shouldn't this deeply sadden us?