I wanted to answer some of your questions. Your questions are marked in red.
1. Who is assuming, me or you? It is you who presented the assumed scenario reserving the freedom & flexibility of supplementing it with more assumptions when faced with questions.
Please refer to your posting from Jan 30th. “This seems to be a subtle attempt to extract a desired answer (or a topic for debate) to the leading questions you have posted. ‘What would you do if you were in my shoes’ kind of questions are aimed at deriving responses based on emotions. Why else would anyone ask for advice from unsuspecting ‘readers’ who are given a vague description and only one side of the story?
There may be a secret agenda behind narrating this fictitious/probable story. It could be an attempt to establish some unscriptural practice or at least to set a favourable platform for its discussion. People generally raise existential issues from assumed scenarios to induce others into saying something against the established beliefs or practices.” End of quotes
Here you have assumed quite a bit about my motives. So it is you who have assumed in my estimation.
2. Is quoting Greek and Hebrew the prerogative of those who live in U. S?
Answer – Quoting Greek and Hebrew is not tied to a certain locale. My plea to people who try to quote Greek or Hebrew to study well, before making unfounded assertions. There are some Scholars that I know who are able to shed lights into what the original author meant to express by using a certain expressions in their original compositions. They have studied for years and had mastered the Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Others who ‘sprinkle’ Hebrew and Greek in their teachings simply do not know what they are doing. It is like someone untrained sitting at the helm of an armored tank with ample supply of canons and shooting with no purpose. It makes lots of noise but the goals are not even defined let alone they hit the target.
3. Are you against the use of religious jargons only? What about your secular phrases? (“becoming wishy-washy when the rubber meets the road”, “blind people’s description of the elephant they ‘saw.”, “putting out a fire by dousing water at the tip of the fire”., “like the Ostrich with the its head buried in the sand”)
Answer – What you quoted are simply idioms. Whenever I use unfamiliar idioms, I try to explain it. Religious ‘jargons’ are different. In another posting I will explain this further.
You quoted the following and asked me a question -
“I wanted such writers who are ready to crucify and tarnish anyone who would consider anything against their ultimatum to sit down and answer my 3 questions.”
4. Who is trying to crucify and tarnish whom? What were you trying when you wrote the following?
Answer – Please read some articles that are being circulated in the leading magazines from last one year or so. [Magazines that are widely circulated among the Brethren in Kerala.]
You quoted the following and asked me few questions -
“I did not think people like xxxxxx, xxxxx [not revealing the names here] who are writing volumes in the Brethren magazines would contribute here or even see this thread. Even if they did see, they might simply shrug off these questions thinking that they and their families are of higher spiritual plateau, and these situations would never face them. Or, they would boldly declare that they will stick with the principles they preach no matter what in all sincerity. It is one thing to preach, but such preachers often find a more favorable ‘application’ to those verses when it hits in their household.”
5. Can you give at least one documentary evidence to show their ultimatum? Look again, who is giving the ultimatum, they or you?
6. “I wanted such writers……… to sit down and answer my 3 questions”
7. Or else what?
Answer – Who issued ‘ultimatum?’ Did I? An ultimatum cannot be given by saying ‘I wanted such writers..” An ultimatum is a demand and failure to comply could lead to dire consequences. Did I come across that way? I doubt that.
You quoted me and asked -
“They claim that they have the final say on this because they are rightly dividing the Word, unlike others.”
8. Where did they claim that they have the final say?
Answer – The articles are very assertive. They have the ‘final say’ in what they publish because it is written on the pages of the magazine and they are not requesting any rebuttal.
You quoted the following and asked -
“In reality, they believe in what they teach.”
9. Shouldn’t they? [This is your question to me.]
Answer – There are many who ‘believe’ wearing Jewelry is a sin. They teach and write such nonsense.. Similarly, they pound the podium with their fist and make assertions on other issues as well. When I wrote the above comment, I wanted to comment their sincerity even though they may not be correct in their assertions. I meant this in a good way. I have commented on the sincerity of Bobby Chacko and Sathyasnehi. Just because they believe something do not make it biblical. This is what I meant.
A final note – The purpose of my writings are invariably focused to challenge the Christians to broaden their outlook about practical Christianity. I seldom interested in debating for the sake of debate. Occasionally I write refuting heresies. I have done that against Bobby Chacko & Sathysnehi and few others on this this forum. They propagate a strange gospel which is not gospel at all. I am thankful for the ones who are diligent in refuting their heresies. I would appreciate any follow up questions to focus on practical Christian living and concerns stemming from the related subject. [Not suggesting that the above questions were not, but I wanted to reiterate my focus.]
Your brother in Christ,