Tuesday, December 25, 2012

A Very Merry Christmas To All!!!

It's about 12:45 AM and Santa hasn't arrived yet.  I need to talk to him about those reindeer droppings on my roof last year.

We went to an afternoon service Christmas Eve before traveling into the city for dinner at the home of my brother-in-law.  The pastor's sermon was based on 1 Timothy 1:15

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst."

It is, of course, that section I emboldened, the point of His coming.  It was the purpose of His having been born 2000-some years ago that we celebrate His birth every December 25th.  There's no Easter without Christmas.

Anyway, the pastor suggested greeting people with the emboldened part during these holy-days rather than "Merry Christmas".  The associate pastor looked forward to employing that verse in response to those who say "Happy Holidays".

To all who visit here, may God richly bless you.  Merry Christmas.


Jim said...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone!

Feodor said...

Happy Holidays!

Parklife said...

Always.. happy holidays!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Happy Kwanzaa!

Marshall Art said...

What...no Festivus?

Neil said...

If they say, "Happy holidays" in a deliberate attempt to avoid the "C" word, then just reply, "Yes, happy HolyDays! Because Christmas is a holy and wonderful day, for Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." (Your pastor had a great idea.)

Parklife said...

in a deliberate attempt to avoid the "C" word...

... ahhh.. Neil.. always so wise.. and able to read minds. Its amazing.

Marshall Art said...

Aside from Neil (and myself in the post), only Jim responded in kind with the most appropriate for the Holy Days, "Merry Christmas". Not the two supposedly studied scholars of the faith, and certainly not the Troll King, Benny.

Nothing in Neil's comments suggests he reads minds, nor is there anything to suggest he encourages others to try. But psychic ability is rarely needed to determine when someone is saying "Happy holidays" to avoid the religious reference, either out of malice against the religious, or fear of being in breach of politically correct idiocy. Regardless, people choose how they wish to greet and really, knowing why they choose "Happy holidays" is not necessary for the response.

Feodor said...

What I love is how Neil directs Marshall how to appropriately think and appropriately respond. Clearly this is vital - and somehow tricky - subject matter for them and care must be taken to do the right thing.

Marshall Art said...

What I love is how feo engages in the mind-reading of which his pet slug Parkie accuses Neil. At least feo understands what constitutes appropriate thoughts and responses. Too bad he never expresses any himself.

Feodor said...

It goes to show how paltry is the shared sort-of faith between you and the Simp.

1) He doesn't trust you to respond with just the precise defensiveness required of an intention to take small things and make them big.

2) He thinks he has all the right, Christian answers. Which makes him kin to Pharisees.

3) You can't see it.

As for hidden, ninja praise embedded in the word, "holidays," please remind the Simp that the quantity of an hour was determined by how ancient Egyptians counted. So, every time you two check your watch to tune into Seventh Heaven reruns, you're engaging in pagan calculations.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Wow. I was being humorous, maybe tugging the lion's tail a bit, but it was meant in fun.

And, Art, just so we're clear - "Without Easter, there would be no Christmas" is the correct formula.

Anyway, it's the Feast of Epiphany, but I'm sure Neil will come along and tell you that's something those non-Christian Catholics invented so we don't have to pay attention to all those pagan feast days.

You belong together.

Marshall Art said...


Hopefully you were able to tell by my December 28, 2012 3:55 PM comment that I was following your lead toward the humorous. What happened afterwards was in response to the mentally challenged comments of feo and his anal wart, Benny.

Also, I get your point ("Without Easter, there would be no Christmas" is the correct formula.)and don't necessarily disagree with it, but that's really a chicken/egg thing, isn't it? We celebrate Christmas because His sacrifice and resurrection makes it significant, but He did have to be born in order to be sacrificed, didn't He?

"You belong together."

Thanks. We are together, along with Bubba, Stan and others who have a clear understanding of what is clearly revealed in Scripture. You and feo are in the other camp, of those who work hard to justify making Scripture mean what you want it to mean.

Feodor said...

"Merry Christmas" is in scripture? Who knew?!

And here I thought it was old English for "Happy Christ's Mass" - a theology I'm pretty sure your tradition, Marshall, waged a murderous war against.


Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"A clear understanding of what is revealed in Scripture"

Only someone who has no idea what the Scriptures are would write that sentence and mean it. So, clarity? No. Understanding? Nuh-uh. Revealed? Not in a single letter.

Marshall Art said...

""Merry Christmas" is in scripture? Who knew?!"

What are you talking about, false priest? Please restrict your comments to what is actually said by a previous commenter. Or are you trying to cement my low opinion of your intelligence?

Marshall Art said...

"Only someone who has no idea what the Scriptures are would write that sentence and mean it."

Considering my ability to read and understand the words used in Scripture, this is clearly not true. I know, Geoffrey, that people like you and feo like to pretend there are heavy mysteries in Scripture beyond the ability of the average human being to divine. But that is no more than your own arrogance in supposing you are somehow more able. It is merely a hope that you can be regarded as one from whom others would seek insight to those heavy mysteries. An incredibly laughable proposition, indeed.

What's more, if nothing in Scripture is clear or revealing, if there is no understanding, then anything you might have to say on the subject is worthless. You may as well speak on arc welding, right?

Feodor said...

""Merry Christmas" is in scripture? Who knew?!"

"What are you talking about, false priest? Please restrict your comments to what is actually said by a previous commenter."

My comments relate to your post, the subject of which - the greeting, "Merry Christmas" - cannot be related to scripture, which is the non sequitur you introduced.

Still, I think you're avoiding the truth that the phrase, Merry Christmas, is medieval in origin and based on a sacramental theology that has Christ's body corporally present in the bread and wine.

This is a theology which all the foundations of the way you practice your Christian faith has completely, utterly, and, in the seventeenth century, violently denied.

Feodor said...

Granted, Marshall, I don't hold you responsible for not knowing this. Neil failed to adequately prepare you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I know I shouldn't . . .

Please tell me, by way of reference, just one place I have ever said there are "heavy mysteries" in Scripture that are beyond the abilities of average people to understand. Since I am an adherent of one of the Protestant principles, that the Scriptures are the Church's books, to be read and understood by the people of God, I cannot imagine even hinting that your odd caricature has anything to do with anything I've ever thought or written. Still, I'm willing to admit I might have slipped and said such a thing once upon a time, so I'll give you leave to find it, link to it, and quote it in full, at which point I will duly apologize.

Trust me, I'm not holding my breath.

Feodor said...

The problem, I think, Geoffrey, is that your average person is a educated enough - and humble enough - to make use of knowledge holders in areas they are not especially trained in. But they also are educated enough that they are aware of how time changes socio-historical views and theory must interplay with experience to draw tentative interpretive understanding.

Marshall's average person watches Honey Boo Boo to gain reflective material.

Marshall Art said...


Ease up on the Robitussin, fool. There is absolutely nothing in my post that would suggest, except to one as desperate as yourself to find fault in your betters, any connection between the greeting "Merry Christmas" and Scripture. Only you made the suggestion that it comes from Scripture. No one else did. You're really wasting your time trying to pretend you're not the idiot you've proven yourself to be. You are not the "knowledge holder" of whom you pathetically hope others will stand in awe.

Perhaps, though, you have the knowledge to explain to me just who this "Honey Boo Boo" is. I'm aware only that it refers to some TV "reality show", but as you use it to mock, you obviously are a fan. I'm not surprised.

Marshall Art said...


I know that you and your sis, Alan, believe yourselves to have a solid strategy in demanding exact quotes to defend against the inferences drawn from your years of condescension. But the phrase "layers of meaning" should be enough to spark your memory. Indeed, your general demeanor in discussions of Scripture, as with discussions for most anything else (AGW, for example) more than suggest an incredibly inflated sense of intellectual superiority and deeper insight despite your attempts to temper it with occasional token expressions of self-deprecation. The very sentence "Only someone who has no idea what the Scriptures are would write that sentence and mean it." supports my hyperbolic conclusion that you have discovered heavy mysteries that are beyond a poor rube like myself. Who do you think you're kiddin', school boy?

Feodor said...

Still can't deal with facts, huh, Marshall? You'd rather duck under anything else. Whenever you're ready:

"Merry Christmas" is medieval in origin and based on a sacramental theology that has Christ's very flesh and blood made real out of bread and wine. Something your kind of faith waged a war against.

Marshall Art said...

The question you haven't answered yet, is "so freaking what?" Or perhaps answer this one: "who freaking cares?" since no one, absolutely no one, has any interest within the context of this discussion regarding the origin of the greeting "Merry Christmas", except you. So argue with yourself if you like. Just another way you stroke yourself.

Feodor said...

So the phrase is'nt all that special then, is it?

Marshall Art said...

And no one was making the argument that the phrase is special. Only that it is the most appropriate greeting in recognizing the season and the reason for it.

Feodor said...

Great! Then saying, "Happy Holidays" ain't no problem. Wonder why the Simp is so into Christ's Mass?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

The sentence you cite, Art, was aimed squarely at you. Not everyone, not most everyone, shoot, not even most people.

It was aimed at you.

That you could write that sentence demonstrates a breathless ignorance when it comes to Scripture. That you rely on Neil, who compounds ignorance with the kind of hateur you ascribe to me, for guidance in this only makes matters worse.

You don't need to have read widely or deeply to "get" Scripture. You don't need any specialized degree to find layer upon layer of meaning in any passage, any text.

All you need is the honest, humble confession that, when you're reading Scripture, everything you thought you knew about it before is probably wrong. The repeated assertion of certitude in the face of centuries of doubt and questions; the repeated assertions of simplicity in the face of millions of words arguing over the placement and inclusion of such parts of speech as articles (which neither original languages have) demonstrate a failure not so much of faith but of imagination. Wrap it up in a big ball of insecurity and the rest of us are left with you and Neil, making sure the rest of the Universe knows what Christians have been arguing about for two millennia.

If I cared one iota (another reference from the history of the faith, which I am quite sure you don't understand; suffice it to say the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet once sent more than a few folks to their deaths) for anything you, or Neil, or anyone else had to say, I might wish you would hear what we've been saying to you. Since you seem to invest far more in being right than in being faithful, I'll leave you to your game.

Marshall Art said...

"It was aimed at you."

Really Geoffie? One would have thought the part where I say "beyond a poor rube like myself" would have made the above unnecessary, Captain Obvious.

"That you could write that sentence demonstrates a breathless ignorance when it comes to Scripture."

No. Actually it demonstrates my confidence that what is clearly revealed in Scripture is clear, understandable and no mystery to even such as myself. But you need to believe it is deeper than it is to the point that only pointy-headed intellectuals like yourself and your siamese twin, feo, can provide instruction to us poor slobs. Get over yourself. Scripture isn't that tricky and you guys aren't all that bright.

"You don't need any specialized degree to find layer upon layer of meaning in any passage, any text."

I'm sorry. I was mistaken. Apparently it's "layer upon layer of meaning". I thought it was just "layers" of meaning. My bad.

"All you need is the honest, humble confession that, when you're reading Scripture, everything you thought you knew about it before is probably wrong."

How pretentious and phoney. So, by your words, you have no idea what Scripture is telling you since when you're reading Scripture, everything you thought you knew about it before is probably wrong. I don't know about you, Poindexter, but when I first decided to see what the Bible really had to say, I assumed I didn't know what it said. That's why I began to study it: to learn what it truly had to say.

And why do you clowns like to believe I rely upon Neil for guidance? I don't know that I've ever asked him for any (other than computer related issues).

"The repeated assertion of certitude in the face of centuries of doubt and questions; the repeated assertions of simplicity in the face of millions of words arguing over the placement and inclusion of such parts of speech as articles (which neither original languages have) demonstrate a failure not so much of faith but of imagination."

You know, I quite often refer to BibleGateway's library of the various Bible offerings for the purpose of comparison and guess what? There's very little difference in the most common Bibles that lead to great troubles on my end. The placement of commas, the choice of words, rarely distort the meaning to the extent that one version totally contradicts another. You're obviously easily confused. But it seems the scholars aren't as baffled as you apparently need to believe they are.

"Wrap it up in a big ball of insecurity..."

I'm very secure in my understanding of Scripture, as I'm sure Neil is, Bubba is, Stan is, Glenn is, Mark is...I'm damn certain Dan T is and even more certain that you're certain none of should be or can be. Fortunately, you don't matter.

"If I cared one iota... I might wish you would hear what we've been saying to you."

First of all, you clearly do care what we say or you wouldn't wet yourself so easily when we say it. Secondly, we clearly hear what you've been saying to us and found it all wanting very badly. But here's the ironic part: when we ask, when we question, when we suggest there might be come fault in what you say, you bail. You see every statement or question provoked by your oh so thoughtful commentaries as an attack. Talk about insecurity! Once again...who you kiddin?

Marshall Art said...

And speaking of insecure, feo continues to do his best to insult his betters, so humbled is he in facing the fact that, like Geoffie, he ain't all that. Notice that Neil doesn't bother responding to feo's desperate attempt to goad. feo tries in without success to erect straw men to beat down. "OH! Neil posted a comment! I have to find a way to mock his words!" And feo dares refer to anyone else as a "simp"?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Insecure?!? You are the poster child for internet insecurity!

I guess the folks at Sadly,No! are right - it's always projection.

What a remarkable display of a lack of any self-understanding.

Marshall Art said...

"What a remarkable display of a lack of any self-understanding."

Really. So I not only don't understand Scripture, but I don't understand myself. Hmmm. Fortunately I have two incredibly intellectual scholars (you and your twin, feo) that can enlighten me on both. Right.

"Insecure?!? You are the poster child for internet insecurity!"

And that manifests how, exactly? By my constant openness to anyone secure enough in their own opinions to express them, or secure enough to explain exactly how I am wrong in my positions?

Or is it by my unwillingness to post comments at the blogs of those usually in opposition to my positions knowing that I am likely to be ridiculed instead of being provided with rational debate?

Or is it my refusal to post comments from those who oppose my position on global warming, instead insisting such people are not worthy of my time? No, wait. That's someone else.

Or is it my insistence that opponents read a bunch of books before in order to understand my position, rather than answer a simple question? No, wait. That's someone else.

Or is it my penchant for accusing anyone who seeks clarification, asks questions or suggests there might be flaws in my position to be simply looking to argue? No. That's not me, either.

I know. Maybe it's how I claim I have no idea what opponents think or feel and that I don't care when they offer their observations, objections or questions about my position? Or is that someone else?

Golly, I'm starting to feel insecure about not being able to pinpoint just what makes me insecure? I'm sure you're secure enough to explain it all.

Marshall Art said...


Your last comment, that I deleted, leads me to wonder if perhaps Geoffie didn't really intend to direct his accusation of insecurity to you and not me.

I can well assure you that I don't need Neil to tell me what to think or believe, as I am more than capable of coming to my own conclusions. That we agree on much and both have a better understanding of Scripture than you do is not a matter of one dictating anything to the other, but simply a matter of us both being open to what Scripture says and both of us seeing the truth that is clearly revealed therein.

I will say, however, that I have strong suspicions about who dictates to you. I'll say a prayer for you.

Feodor said...

Surely the insecurity lies in the one doing the anxious deleting.

It begs the question, what do you have to hide?

Marshall Art said...

Well then. I will try to remember to save the comments I delete so as to reprint them with the unnecessary epithets losers like yourself feel compelled to print about people better than yourself. My last has addressed everything else your deleted drivel hoped to put forth. You are incapable of posting anything that could possibly put me on the spot or expose some flaw in my positions and arguments. You aren't smart enough or in possession of enough knowledge and info for that, as you continuously prove over and over again.

But of course, just like your anal wart, Parklife, you deceitfully hope to put forth the notion that I am hiding something by deleting your insults. You wish.

Feodor said...

You're revealing your exposed nerve Marshall.

To be so defensive of Neil when you're never defensive about anything else.

It's plain to see how you depend upon him to help make your prejudices make sense in the world.

You're a well disguised sycophant - disguised even to yourself.

Marshall Art said...


You really seem to need to believe the things you do in order to sustain your self-promotion as insightful and intellectual. Such self-delusion is a real problem and you should seek counseling for it.

There is nothing in any of the opinions I express that satisfy the definition of "prejudice", though you try so hard to convince yourself of that as well. And I am no more defensive of Neil than I am of any other visitor to my blog regardless of how many comments I delete or allow, though again, there's no doubt you need to believe this as well.

As for my relationship to Neil (or anyone else with whom I agree), how do you know it is not he who is guided by what I say?

Feodor said...

"how do you know it is not he who is guided by what I say?"

Hah! You finally got jokes.

It's how he talks to you, as evidenced by his comment above.

Marshall Art said...

Why do you insist on portraying yourself as idiotic as Parkie? Neil was only rephrasing the same sentiment my pastor expressed. But I'll let you in on something...

If I felt the need for guidance toward truth regarding the Christian faith, I would have no problem tapping Neil on the shoulder for his opinion. If I felt compelled to seek guidance on how to bastardize the faith, you're my man.

Feodor said...

That's exactly what the Pharisees said to Jesus.

Marshall Art said...

Wow! How could the Pharisees know that you would bastardize the faith??!! That's incredible!!

Feodor said...

There's just something adolescent and kind of teen-awkwardly fumbling with your comeback. LIke something a writer for Wayne's World would write.

Marshall Art said...

Well, feo, you wish your comments had that kind of gravitas. You see, feo, there's a mighty difference between what I said to you and what the Pharisees said to Jesus. I'm right and they were wrong. You HAVE bastardized the faith to contort and twist it to your liking. How arrogant that you would dare suggest anything even hinting at a comparison between you and Jesus. Typical for a false priest like you.

Feodor said...

"I'm right and they were wrong."

Do you understand what kind of argument this is, Marshall? Not to mention what weight it carries.


"How arrogant that you would dare suggest anything even hinting at a comparison between you and Jesus."

I didn't make the comparison. You did, all along, as you take these legalistic, Judaistic positions that turn grace back into law.

It's OK to pick grain and eat on the Sabbath, Marshall.

It's OK to eat all kinds of four-footed animals.

It's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Marshall Art said...

I simply stated the premise that I am right and you are wrong. My arguments in support of that premise have existed since you first darkened the comments section of this blog. The weight of those arguments are immeasurably heavy.

You did indeed make the comparison when you dared compare my comment to you as "exactly what the Pharisees said to Jesus". It implied that your of your bastardization of the faith was akin to what the Pharisees insisted Jesus was doing. The irony is that you have bastardized the faith every bit as much as the Pharisees have. The common fallacy perpetrated by your kind who visit here is that I am "legalistic" in simply stating God's clearly revealed will for our behavior here on earth. You sorry posers make every effort to ignore that in favor of a very thin and vapor-like understanding of grace that allows you to do what you like regardless of God's will. Thus, I will continue to call impure everything that frauds and false priests and false teachers like you have made clean to satisfy your own desires.

Feodor said...

As directed by Neil, of course.

Feodor said...

And here you both are, waging a war to protect a theology you don't agree with: medieval transubstantiation that re-sacrifices Christ in every mass.

Indeed. I'm moved by the theology of Christ's real presence in the elements of communion. So much so to say Happy Christ's Mass!

And this, every time we eat his body and drink his blood in communion together as Christ enters us according to his promises.

Marshall Art said...

I know you like believing that which is not true if it helps you feel superior to superior people. I also know that you are so desperate to feel that superiority that you will raise up ridiculous falsehoods that you can then try to foist into a discussion and, hopefully, win.

But the fact is that neither Neil nor I show support for a doctrine of any kind simply by defending the use of the expression "Merry Christmas", except for the doctrine of Christianity in general. Ask 1000 people, with even just a cursory understanding of what Christians believe, how they think a Christian would define the word "Christmas", and it is more than likely that they'll respond "They think it's the day Christ was born" or words or sentiments to that effect. They will NOT get into the etymology of the word.

Thus, it is typical of your dishonest and insecure nature that you would try to ram this talk of what the word means into this thread in order to try to denigrate either Neil or me.

So, you idiot, to defend the use in public of the expression "Merry Christmas" is not "waging a war to protect a theology" with we might disagree, but merely a stand against those other idiots (cut from the same cloth as you) who would pretend the expression is in anyway offensive or potentially so, and thus should be replaced with something like "Happy Holidays", which you idiots believe is better for a secular society.

By the way, your understanding of the faith compels me to warn you against assuming that Christ has entered you in any way. I would not be surprised that He might say "I never knew you."

Feodor said...

Yes, the fact that you don't seriously care about the meanings of what you say as a Christian has been stupefyingly evident with the sharpest clarity since I first came across your staunch inanities.

Nonetheless, what you say by faith has meaning, even if you don't pay attention to it. And the things you say about faith come out especially twisted precisely because you don't pay attention to meaning.

The same is slightly less true for Neil.

Thanks for confirming.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, you wish. What I say is thought out and intentional. It carries with it the meaning I intend and to the extent that I understand meanings of words I use I am confident my Lord will find no fault. It is the nasty things we say intentionally that should concern us. It is stupefyingly evident with the sharpest clarity since you first darkened this blog that you don't think much at all except for your failed attempts to present yourself as some kind of intellectual.

The things I say about MY faith are accurate until someone can show me otherwise. It's painfully obvious that you are not up to the task as you know so little. You certainly haven't refuted anything I've ever put forth about the faith. Twisting is your specialty and you don't even do that well.

Thanks for confirming yet again that your higher education and volumes of books have done nothing to instill anything akin to wisdom in you.

Feodor said...

Little White Church
by Marilyn Nelson

Eaton, NH, 1879

Us Free Will Baptists walked a thin tightwire,
a springing path out over the abyss.
We knew how a sudden April desire to dance
can topple you head over heels into the fire.

We knew how warmth exuded by a youth
singing at prayer meeting in a nearby seat
and inhaled deeply can inebriate
you to the point of renouncing the truth.

We lived repent-now-before-it's-too-late.
We didn't believe God forgives you, once and for all.
We knew how you can just turn around and fall,
of your own free will, how easy it is to doubt.

But there's no Free Willers left around this place
since the Phelps boy come back from Harvard talking
about Grace.

Marshall Art said...

Ah, the grace card. So often played by the pseudo-sanctimonious progressive CINO who bends to the whims of the world he would be better merely in than so obviously of.

Feodor said...

If you're a Christian, then I don't want even want the name. I'll be a Jew for Jesus. I'll be a believer in the Way. I'll be a Buddhist in Christ.

Anything but a judge and a hater.

I've got to follow the gospels. I'll let you have the law.

Marshall Art said...

Now it's the "judge" & "hater" cards. More typical nonsense thrown at one who simply restates Scriptural truths. If you wish to follow the gospels, then you can't say that the laws are no longer to be useful in informing us of what does and doesn't constitute behavior pleasing to God. Ignore them at your own risk, but calling someone like myself a hater or judgmental itself is in breech, as it constitutes lying.

So understand that you can call yourself anything you want, but what you do is far more important and indicator of who and what you are. Lip service doesn't cut it.

Feodor said...

Some days ago now:

"There is absolutely nothing in my post that would suggest, except to one as desperate as yourself to find fault in your betters, any connection between the greeting "Merry Christmas" and Scripture."

And now:

"More typical nonsense thrown at one who simply restates Scriptural truths."

Marshall Art said...

I'm sure you can explain just what the connection is between these two quotes. I'm sure it will be as nonsensical and connecting these two quotes.

Feodor said...

"I'm sure it will be as nonsensical and connecting these two quotes."

See, this is what I'm saying. I can't make sense of what that means. You're either drinking too much or sleeping too little.

At any rate, if you reread the two claims you make: 1) "there is no connection between my post on Merry Christmas and scripture," and 2) "I am one who only restates scriptural truths," I think you'll see the double down on stupidity that is your last comment.

Marshall Art said...

Oh. I see. You're playing the typo game again. Yeah. I erred and it should have read

"I'm sure it will be as nonsensical as connecting these two quotes."

My point, now even more clear than it was before even with the typo, is that the two statements have no connection to each other and any explanation from you as to why you think they do will have to be equally as ridiculous as pairing the two statements is.

So, looking at the statements themselves, one at a time, there is nothing whatsoever stupid about either or you would have pointed it out (or tried to). The first was a factual statement regarding the topic of my post. The second was a factual statement in reply to something you had said that was idiotic.

FYI---I am indeed lacking quality sleep these days. What's YOUR excuse?

Feodor said...

My excuse is that I'm in a virtual conversation with a nitwit.

Case in point: the careless typing game is Craig's which you bafooned as legit.

Marshall Art said...

But conversing with yourself is irrelevant here. I'm glad to hear you recognize what I've continued to lament; that you're a highly educated nitwit. As to the rest, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Feodor said...

What a junior high way with words you have, Marshall.

"I know you are so what am I?"

Feodor said...

Craig:"Ah, Feodor, brainy one, why can' you capitalize Ivy League?"

Marshall then: "Yes, that's a legitimate criticism."

Marshall now:"Playing the old typo game, huh?"

Marshall Art said...

Junior way with words? I'll be more direct. The only nitwit here has been you, and you continue to prove it. Your last, for instance. Craig's critique was not merely about typos or errors of capitalization, but about YOU, the highly educated and arrogant about it snob making those errors. You're the one who likes to posture yourself as having authority and justification for condescension. So Craig's was a legitimate criticism.

But when YOU play the typo game, it is a desperate ploy. You want to pretend my point is unclear. That means either deceit or less than highly educated stupidity regarding understanding my point on your part and I'd wager a big chunk of both.

Feodor said...

If you - or Craig - want to concern yourself with who should be clean of "typos or errors of capitalization," then you should look at everyone with more than a junior high education, don't you think?

Which includes you and Craig, I assume.

You will be judged with the judgement you use.


Marshall Art said...

But we don't judge based on assumed levels of education. This whole side argument began as a result of your own arrogant condescension. If you didn't act as if you were actually more intelligent than everyone else, no comment regarding capitalizing, punctuation, word usage or any of that crap would have taken place. It is YOU who insists on posturing yourself as intellectually superior. Thus, it is reasonable to expect a more exactness in the rules of written expression. No hypocrisy here, false priest. Just another example of people pointing out what a fraud you are. You really ought to be used to it by now, OR, about ready to give up the pretense of superiority. You'd do well to do either, as well as spending less time trying to find fault while sticking to the arguments being made.

Feodor said...

Au contraire mon ami, it's because he knows I'm better educated that he decided to try to score points by pointing out the insignificant. It happens often with the jealous.

Look at you, too. Making hay out of straw.

Have you seen any samples of Einstein's manuscripts? Or Newton's? Or Benjamin Franklins?

Truth does not rest in capitals, bubba. boola boola.

Marshall Art said...

You can believe what you like, as you have shown with psychotic regularity. But the fact is that were you to have never acted like the pompous asshole, no shot at typos by you would have ever been fired. Your educational credentials are worthless here, especially considering how your every comment undermines your claim of being highly educated. But since you do indeed lack intelligence, I will say it again: If you insist on posturing yourself as highly intelligent (a highly amusing insistence indeed), poor grammar, punctuation and writing skills (not to mention stupid positions you take) do not support that proposition. Were Einstein or Newton or Franklin pompous condescending assholes? I don't know. But you don't deserve to be mentioned along side of any of them. You've spent a lot of time trying to deflect the truth you don't like regarding your own self. Don't bother wasting strokes with any further defense.

Feodor said...

Au contraire, mon ami, it's not pomposity I lend, it's knowledge. (Since I have never concerned myself with grammatical errors in you - unless you choose to play the seventh grader yourself, which you have done.)

And let me remind you that you're the one posting on Christmas and have shown you don't know much about what Christmas is. Neither are you able to give any meaning to a Christian year other than wearing pleated khakis two days a year.

Do you observe Advent, Marshall? Those of us who take Christmas seriously do. Advent is a month long preparation for Christmas. A month of prayers and songs and theological themes developed over centuries to prepare Christians to enter into the mass of Christ's birth with due reverence, awe, and commitment.

Do you know Advent, Marshall? Do you know Gaudete Sunday? Do you know why the third candle is rose instead of purple?

Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

Marshall Art said...

You have lent nothing but annoyance. You have not shown that I lack knowledge in anything about which I have posted. For example, this post is not about Christmas. It's about what greeting people use during the Christmas season and a suggested alternative.

But you inject what you think is the lending of knowledge for which no one requested or demonstrated a need. Worse, you do it in order to deflect attention from your very unChristian habit of insulting my visitors. It wouldn't be so bad if you actually possessed the intellect you sadly and falsely believe you possess and indeed showered us with knowledge otherwise missing. But that has never been the case. Thus, you again waste strokes.

Feodor said...

"It is, of course, that section I emboldened, the point of His coming. It was the purpose of His having been born 2000-some years ago that we celebrate His birth every December 25th. There's no Easter without Christmas."

"For example, this post is not about Christmas."

Marshall Art said...

In your typically deceitful or stupid way (it's always one or the other at least, and so often a big chunk of both), you take the first comment out of context in order to pretend it is contradicted by the second. The first quote, in context, is a set-up for the point of the post. Thus, the second quote is absolutely accurate and true. You can continue drawing attention to your stupidity if you like, feo, but it's getting really sad. The hole you've dug for yourself is incredibly deep. At what point will you stop digging?

Feodor said...

Well, your reason is buried so deep under your prejudices it may take a while.

Marshall Art said...

And there you support my premise regarding your stupidity. You do so much to confirm my case. Thank you.

Feodor said...

You don't have cases, Marshall. You have misplaced baggage. You try to make some point about the emphasis of Christmas and you don't know the least bit about how the church has indeed emphasized Christmas.

I mean, for God's sake, you can't even understand Christmas!

But it's not christian faith that you're interested in. Being a Philistine (in addition to a Pharisee - you do reach heights in some ways) you're the least little bit interested in how the Spirit has guided historic christian faith.

The only kind of thing you're interested in is feeling antagonism at the larger world. And why? Small, small heart.

Marshall Art said...

"You try to make some point about the emphasis of Christmas..."

Again, since you are so intent to find fault that you can't see clearly, I have not been trying to make any point about Christmas here, other than what I've already explained was the point of the post, which was addressing the greetings used during the season. YOU are trying to make a point you want desperately to believe needs to be made to present yourself as intellectually superior. Now you want to pretend I need schooling on how the church has emphasized Christmas, as if I need the instruction. You show a definite need to believe what you want to believe about me and those with whom I share positions. Whatever gets you through the night, false priest.

"...you can't even understand Christmas!"

Yeah. Sure.

"But it's not christian faith that you're interested in."

Yeah. Sure. As if you've ever been able to provide evidence of this.

"...you're the least little bit interested in how the Spirit has guided historic christian faith."

It is not the Holy Spirit of God that guides you, false priest. The Holy Spirit does not guide one away from Scriptural teaching. You support much that does conflict, therefor, whatever spirit guides you is foul and not from Him.

"The only kind of thing you're interested in is feeling antagonism at the larger world."

Yeah. Sure. As if you've ever been able to provide evidence of this. I do, however, feel a bit of antagonism toward false priests and other leftist liars. Hard not to considering the harm they've done and continue to do to our culture.

Feodor said...

You left out an "e." For in the same way you judge, you will be judged.

Marshall Art said...

But again, idiot-boy, no one was judging you, certainly not based on typos and certainly not me. Indeed, in my case, I had only clarified that what was meant by the "Ivy League" issue was that you, a self-styled brilliant and highly-educated intellectual are not all that if you can make such an obvious mistake and therefore dropping the attitude would be a good idea. Iz that cleer enuff fore yew, yu pathetek en aragent asshole?

Feodor said...

I wasn't thinking about typos. Or, at least, only thinking of them as analogous to what's really important.

You have such an atrophied imagination.

Marshall Art said...

Of course you weren't thinking of typos. Sure. Nice dance. And you're right about my imagination, as I just can't imagine a time when you'll understand what is really important.

Feodor said...

I understand that the birth of the Christ is important.

You keep saying its just a greeting.

Marshall Art said...

"You keep saying its just a greeting."

Never said anything like that. The truth is clearly not in you.

Feodor said...

You're absolutely right. You never said "just about."

What you have done, not really understanding where Christmas comes from or what it means in the life of the church, has been to focus on the greeting.

It's as if you're waging a war to make the christian observance of Christmas shallow and trite.

Please stop this shallow war against Christmas, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

It would almost be humorous if your attempts to find fault weren't so incredibly pathetic and desperate. Not understanding the meaning of Christmas? How is this off the mark?

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners

Yeah. I can see how that's shallow and trite. It's as if you're waging a war against intelligence and clear thinking.

I'll give you one thing: you actually stumbled upon the fact (and it's about time considering how many times I've re-stated the fact) that the focus of this post was on the greetings used during the Christmas season. Have you even read the post? Can you find someone to help you do so?

Feodor said...

God became man so that men might become gods.

(Rather more deep than your parroting of text.)

Marshall Art said...

You'd like to think it's deep, or deeper, but the fact is that this concept of becoming gods has never fully been settled, and thus, to maintain it is somehow more on point than "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" is just another desperate attempt on your part to pretend you are more intellectual. I fully get that you need to feel as if you have a better understanding of the faith. You are free to believe such nonsense as it obviously is so important for you to feed this psychotic need. Counseling would serve you better.

Feodor said...

"I fully get that you need to feel as if you have a better understanding of the faith."

That's not my need, Marshall.

My need is to avoid believing that Christian faith can be so stupid as to be closeted in a mind like yours.

I felt as if a God-like child just last night out to dinner with my wife. We were talking about the death of Mayer Koch and how he had purchased his burial plot a few years ago in one of Trinity Church's (Episcopal) three cemeteries - the one that was still open at the time. In fact, it was the only one where one could still be buried in Manhattan. Which is why Mr. Koch bought it. And he put his head stone up, too: "My father was Jewish, my mother was Jewish. I am Jewish." Along with the Shema.

We talked about how he managed New York out of its fiscal crisis; how he was the one who began the long, steady decline in crime; how he was the one who guided huge development in affordable housing - though he did have to cut services early on in the economic crunch.

Next to us was a gay couple - late middle age - having a really good time. On the other side, three sistahs and an south asian Indian-American. Our waiter was a muslim. And all kinds of queers and dykes and brown and yellow, white and black people, octogenarian mulatto mixed race married folks, French and Swedish workers, refugees from the Congo working at the UN - and so many dogs attached to many of these people.

I had clams and shrimp and calamari on capellini with a glass of Orvieto. Lisa had tilapia on spinach with pesto. She doesn't drink - tender stomach. For desert, a baked apple tort and tiramisu.

Tomorrow, I go to work again with students from Bed-Stuy, too many of them will be hungry, too many from unhealthy homes, too many with untreated learning issues, too many who have been formed from infancy witnessing or bearing the burden of gun violence. And with my colleagues, we will work to exhaustion to lift them to college, where there parents or grandparents or foster parents or big sisters want them to be: a chance to make it up and out. Or a chance to come back and help Bed-Stuy change for the better.

These things were in my mind. And I thought about the rich glory that is God's creation in Christ - yet to be fulfilled but certain to be. And fuck if you didn't come to mind as a sad son of a bitch missing out on real happiness.

Missing out on real Christmas.

Marshall Art said...

"My need is to avoid believing that Christian faith can be so stupid as to be closeted in a mind like yours."

If you say so. But this is all based upon or driven by an understanding of the faith that is, based on your expression of it since your first appearance in my blog experience, total crap and "of the world", not on anything Scripture teaches or reveals.

"I felt as if a God-like child..."

How sweet. But how would you know? There is nothing "God-like" about you apart from being created in His image. The rest of your story, though I'm sure the typing of it was akin to stroking yourself, was boring. Finally, you make this idiotic and very unChristian remark:

"And fuck if you didn't come to mind as a sad son of a bitch missing out on real happiness."

You must really need to believe I'm unhappy or missing out on happiness. I'm sure my version of "real happiness" has no relation to yours. That in itself provides for me even more happiness, so I thank you for that. False priests supporting moral depravity does not make me happy at all. The knowledge that you could repent and actually someday evolve to represent the faith as it should be does. The feeling that this will never happen does not.

Feodor said...

And that, folks, is Marshall's Jesus: anxious about little words instead of loving the large, Christcreated world, ever spinning towards salvation.

Marshall Art said...

The world is spinning towards Judgement, false priest. Try reading a Bible once in a while. You can even find some you can color if the real one is too much trouble.

Also, I don't love the world. It's far too corrupted for me. I love the people in it, though. Not in the false way as you do, stroking their corrupt natures so as to appear loving to their eyes, but as Christ taught so as to act in the type of manner pleasing to Him to the best of my ability to do so.

Feodor said...

"The world is spinning towards Judgement..."

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

Apparently, then, according to you, your Jesus didn't do a very good job.

You should try the living Christ.

Things will look a lot brighter!

(Oh, I forgot, you're committed to destruction so your anger has an outlet. And not to faith.)

Marshall Art said...

Is there anything left of that barrel you're scraping? Those two comments of mine you quoted are not the least bit in conflict. While I am indeed saved by my faith in Christ, He will still come to judge the world. You'd know this if you would ever actually read a real Bible. All that education...all those books...sigh...they've done you so little good.

Feodor said...

"While I am indeed saved by my faith in Christ..."

But that's not what you quoted. You quoted 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy says that Christ was in the world to save sinners. Plural. But you write that the world is spinning toward judgment. And that either pits you against St. Timothy (not hard to believe) or your Christ did not do a very good job - really just a judgment of your paper Jesus.

The verse from Timothy, by the way, has nothing to do with his birth but with his mission.

You really don't get Christmas.

Marshall Art said...

Oh. So, against all evidence to the contrary, YOU believe Christ not only came to save sinners, but He has indeed granted each and every one of us salvation no matter what.

There is no conflict between the quote in your last and the 1 Timothy passage. There is no Biblical evidence that Christ will save ALL sinners. The 1 Tim verse only says He came to save sinners. "Plural" doesn't mean "all".

Again, you need to read a REAL Bible.

Feodor said...

Those who are healthy have no need of a doctor.

Marshall Art said...

Your last makes no sense whatsoever in relation to this discussion. Not a surprise.

Feodor said...

Your 'real Bible" doesn't have anything like that in it?

Or are you unable to put two verses together?

Marshall Art said...

Of course it does, as you well know. The problem is your belief you've made a point by alluding to it here.

When Christ said that, He was referring to the reason why He was associating with sinners. And of course, on the larger scale, it is why He came altogether...because we are all sinners and we need Him.

But you still haven't shown any contradiction in any of the pairs of comments of mine you've chosen to attack. That He came to save sinners does not mean that all sinners will be saved. What's more, you have yet to refute my statement regarding the world hurdling toward Judgement, nor have you supported in any way yours regarding it spinning toward salvation. You simply spit crap out of your keyboard and expect it to be absorbed without thought and then pee yourself trying to demonstrate that your thoughtless drivel has any substance. Try that at Geoffrey's place. He does it, too.

Feodor said...

The Pharisees see Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners. They ask why on earth would he sit down and eat with sinners. He says it is not the healthy that need a physician, but those who are sick. Then he says that he did not come to call the righteous.

So, clearly, there are righteous.

Also, clearly, where people need to be saved, he will be there. He answers the need. He is eating with sinners. (Not quite your picture of what he does with sinners.)

Further, and earlier in the chapter, Jesus' healing witnesses to the more important truth that "the Son of Man" has the authority to forgive sins. Which he also does. Right on the spot. (Also not behaving the way you say he behaves in judgment.)

Finally, given this gospel picture of Jesus, his motivations, his statements, and his actions, as you've quoted, St. Paul says to St. Timothy that Christ came into the world to save sinners.

Who can doubt that he will? You.

The Christ I believe in came to save sinners, has the authority to save, and does save sinners. All because the real Bible tells me so.

The Christ you believe in can't save all sinners, or won't, or may not. If he can't or will not, then the gospel of Mark is not to be believed. If he may decide not to, St. Timothy is not to be believed.

You're "real" bible contradicts itself in your twisted take on the role of Christ's work.

I put it down to you're cheap understanding that Christmas is just a greeting.

Marshall Art said...

Like the false priest you are, you suggest my understanding of Christmas is limited to just a greeting. Nothing in my post or the subsequent responses suggests that to an honest person, which explains your inability to see the obvious.

Also, there is nothing in my post or subsequent comments that suggests to an honest person that I believe, think or misunderstand that Jesus will save sinners. But then again, you're not one of those honest persons.

The real Bible, not the one you read, or any that you've pretended to study, speaks often of a place known as "Hell" and Jesus warns against living in a manner that would consign one to that place. If there is no Judgement, if Jesus saves all, what purpose or logic would God have for such a place?

There will be Judgement. Of this there is no debate. Whether or not any one person specifically will be judged is not in question here. Try to pay attention, both to the actual comments you think you are correcting, but more importantly to what Scripture actually teaches.

Feodor said...

"Anyway, the pastor suggested greeting people with the emboldened part during these holy-days rather than 'Merry Christmas'. The associate pastor looked forward to employing that verse in response to those who say 'Happy Holidays'.

"But the fact is that neither Neil nor I show support for a doctrine of any kind simply by defending the use of the expression 'Merry Christmas', except for the doctrine of Christianity in general."

"you suggest my understanding of Christmas is limited to just a greeting."

Why, yes, yes I do.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Not exactly Hell. And Hell is not a word used in the New Testament, Marshall. It's a translation of three words, Two that are used about as frequently as each other and one word that is used once or twice, I think.

So, half of "hell" is merely the grave. Which you will go down into. The other half of "hell" is, indeed a torment for a time. What's the purpose? To cleanse souls of the corrosion of sin. LIke burnishing a pot. Or a burnishing the rust off of metal.

Marshall Art said...

"Why, yes, yes I do."

That's because you're an idiot. And you're an idiot because you think you've proven something by quoting me saying things that does not provoke the conclusion you want it to provoke. Once again, and get your imaginary black wife to help you read this, the post speaks ONLY to the greetings used during the Christmas season. It does not speak on the meaning of Christmas itself, even if the greeting alternative offered by the pastor includes a hint at that meaning. You've lost this argument long ago. Give it up.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).

"And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7)

These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).

Feodor said...

"And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire."

Feodor said...

"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all."

Feodor said...

My wife is not help. She thinks you're going to hell.

Which is detrimental to my cause because she's all soul.

Marshall Art said...

"Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Apparently, you think being thrown into the lake of fire is salvation. But the following chapter speaks of those not thrown in and there is nothing that speaks to those who were being saved. Try to keep up.

As to your imaginary wife, I have no doubt she believes as you do, considering she is of your own making, as is your god. But hey, maybe she can support "her" belief that I'm going to hell with some evidence that suggests that might be true. You certainly never could.

Feodor said...

I don't think you're going to Hell. But I do think you'll stay rather a lengthy time in Gehenna while the fire burns off the dross.

But my wife says that since you believe in Hell (and her emphasis seems clear to indicate how character shapes belief) that you will be subject to: "‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

Marshall Art said...

You can tell your "wife", or left hand as the case may be, that I do not judge. That's always been YOUR schtick as you think me worthy of a stay in Gehenna. But to call behaviors sinful is not judgement if those behaviors were called so by God Himself. It is only stating the obvious reality of the situation. This is troubling for you as you support sinful behavior and choose to call it good. Call me what you like, but that won't help you.

As to what I believe, it is what Christ teaches, what God has revealed to us in Scripture. You have yet to show how I've been mistaken in understanding any of what I have ever posted.

I await your next attempt to pretend you're not dancing.

Feodor said...

I've found, Marshall, that it's a little tricky telling black folks that you're not into judgment when you hold the positions that you do.

They seem to have a centuries tuned fine antennae when it comes to being judge by the Bible and the Church. After all, they've heard these words used when called inferior, and under Cain's curse, and belonging to the sons of Ham (surely coming from the mouths of your ancestors):

"As to what I believe, it is what Christ teaches, what God has revealed to us in Scripture."

Marshall Art said...

I'm not surprised that you find telling the truth to be a tricky endeavor. But in order to do so, you would need to be honest about the positions I do hold, rather than the positions you need to believe I hold in order for your pose of moral superiority to hold any water.

Here's a helpful hint: Don't dare to tell blacks anything about which you know absolutely nothing.

Feodor said...

By "blacks" I am assuming you mean people. Like black people. Black folks. Black community.

Your colors are showing.

And as I said, black folks have a well-tuned antennae for hateful people.

And you're on the list. Not just for black people, either.

Marshall Art said...

By "blacks", I mean blacks, like I mean whites, or Asians, or Europeans, or hispanics, etc. etc. etc. Leave it to a race-baiting false priest to pretend the omission of the word "people" suggests something racist.

As to race-baiting, the notion that "blacks" have developed some "well-tuned antennae for hateful people" is absolute crap. I can tell this easily by your implying that hate can be found in me.

You like to believe you can read between lines. The truth is that you're writing between the lines that which you want to read. Take your racist bullshit elsewhere. It won't fly here.

Feodor said...

Well, Europeans would be people in Europe. Like the good people of Spain.

So hispanics are... ?

And white people can't be European?

Now, as far as black folks go, you wold need just a little nudging to remember that simply using the one word, "blacks," in the mouths of people like you has almost always been spoken in disrespectful tones. Like when Donald Trump said,

"I've always had a great relationship with the blacks."


"Laziness is a trait in blacks."

You begin to put yourself in such company when you write it the same.

Wait, did I say, "begin." Well, you're a long time gone now from beginning. The hate is buried deep in you. But a broken antennae like mine can still pick it up.

Marshall Art said...

"So hispanics are... ?" People from any Spanish speaking country.

Now if you had just one honest bone in your body, you would acknowledge that any use of the word, "blacks", in the mouths of people like me is never used as anything more than a descriptor of a particular group of people being discussed.

But your desperation in projecting your racism onto others (you've no antennae at all that picks up truth) is evident in your desire to put forth the words of a former employee in an unauthorized bio of Trump, rather than link to any words that came from his own mouth. Whether Trump is racist or not I have no idea. I've no doubt you want him to be one since he's right-of-center.

You should deal with your own hatred, loser, rather than pretending you can detect it in others. And someday, you might want to offer evidence that hatred or racism resides in me. That would be a good trick.

Feodor said...

So are Spaniards Europeans or Hispanics? To you.

The way one uses categorical names reveals what descriptions are implicit in the user.

When one uses the category of "black people" or "black folks" - as they use for themselves - then it is a sign of respect.

When one refuses to use what the people in the category use, but instead insists on their own way - as you do with, "blacks," then it is a sign of disrespect.

What a surprise that you can't get this nor go along with it. It's the same as your intentionally disrespectful use of names for gay and lesbian people.

You intend disrespect. Because you're just that way.

Marshall Art said...

The way one uses categorical names reveals nothing that can't be clarified by direct questioning on the part of the listener. The problem here, is what we've come to expect from the left, which any excuse to accuse the opposition of racism, because it's far easier than dealing with the actual issue at hand.

"When one refuses to use what the people in the category use, but instead insists on their own way - as you do with, "blacks," then it is a sign of disrespect."

One thing is true: I don't have a great deal of respect for people who run this bullshit. It's not only race-baiting, but it is an attempt to dictate to others where such people have no authority, right or moral standing to do so.

"It's the same as your intentionally disrespectful use of names for gay and lesbian people."

You mean "homosexual" and "lesbian"? OH! I know! You're referring to that non-issue of using the contracted alternative to "homosexual", "homo". When I refer to one in particular, or speak to them face to face, I call them by their name. But this is worse than the race-baiting in that you expect me to deal with the morally corrupt on their terms. You are of the world, aren't you?

As to intending disrespect, just like that puss-dripping boil on your ass, Parklife, you have been disrespectful to me and my visitors since the first time your fouled my blog with your presence, you hypocritical false priest. YOU are indeed "just that way".