N.T. Wright wrote:So far, not to me. "Gotcha"? Puh-lease...
N.T. Wright wrote:Actually, sir,
Don't call me "sir", Dr Wright. I work for a living.
N.T. Wright wrote:I was simply asking you to specify what remark I had made to you (see above - "not to me") you deemed as warranting an apology.
As I said, I'm not sure your remarks require an apology. You're welcome to figure that part out by yourself. I don't think it's my place.
However, since your quote of me includes my "quote" of you, It's not too much of a stretch to think you might already know what you should be apologizing for. But then, so far you don't seem to be reading things as thoroughly as you might, so you might not know after all.
N.T. Wright wrote:You continue to refer to me as "dude," which I assume you intend to be derisive,
Since "dude" seems to offend you, and you seem to be taking a formalistic attitude, henceforce I'll call you Dr. Wright, as I have already started to.
That being said, you really aren't reading much of what's written here, are you, Dr Wright? I refer you to the answer I made above to your... "acolyte(?)" irthnvesl, regarding my use of the word "dude". If you read that, you'll probably know what I mean bycallibng men "dude".
However, to make sure you don't miss what I said while you are reading it, I told him most people use the word "dude" in a friendly, inclusive way these days. I call all the men here "dude", and so far, I can only think of one who took offense at it. Your assumption of derision is wholly inaccurate. How many inaccuracies does that make for you so far, Dr Wright?
N.T. Wright wrote:referred to Mrs. Smith as "Hon,"
...also a friendly, inclusive diminutive, one commonly used from an older man to a younger woman. And, one which she doesn't seem to have a problem with. That being so, what business would that be of yours, Dr Wright?
N.T. Wright wrote: and accused me of lacking grace, depth, and love.
Don't forget knowledge, I said you lacked that too, and that you needed to sanctify your tongue. Those things were not accusations, they were observations, and quite obvious to anyone who reads what you've written.
N.T. Wright wrote:May I take it that this is your way of demonstrating what it means to "love first?"
Sure, unless you think it's more loving to let a brother continue sinning obviously without challenging him, which is not scriptural. And frankly, I don't see how allowing you to continue spewing your sarcasm upon Jennifer from a basis of misinformation would be showing
her love, either. In all honesty, I don't see how you could call allowing either of those things to go on "love", but you're welcome to explain it, Dr Wright.
I'm listening...