It may seem "neutral" to you, Zarove, but I'd ask you to do the same thing you asked me-- turn it around and see how you'd feel if someone spoke this way to you.
Except inthis case peopel do speak to me this way all the time. Family, friends from bakc in the old COuntry, ect...
This is why we are two peopel divided by a common language.
The problem I had with the Testamony, though, wasn't a condecendign tone broguth abotu by standard Americans peech, btu by diliberate statements, such as labling others Patriarichal or questionign the validity of the disabled. With me it is just the manner and word choice that is beign discused.
To help on my end, perhaps you'd like a link to a Board of mostlry Brits I post on?
I do not mean offence but it'd be pretty hard for me to change how I talk, and I have turned it round, but peopel who know how we talk simply ignore this.
I cnanot, hwoever, ignroe the testamonial, since I am familiar wiht American spech, and the text was simply derogitory,not merey cold and styalised.
It is a bit irritating to explain to someone that you have extensive training in lit, and then have them think they need to explain authorial intent to you. It's like if I told you I was a scientist, and then you thought it necessary to tell me what the periodic table of elements was.
But thats the point. I am expressing the same sort of frustration with htose hwo seem to want ot conform the Scriptures to their own way of thinking, and I myself ama writer by trade.
Autherial intention is still the principle determenant, and it still remaisn to be seen that Pausl Autherial intent did not exclude women from Public Ministry wihtin the Church.
In fact, the reading of the text suggests otherwise.
It snto so much to call yuo into queasiton,as to call the position you take into queastion.
Rather than simply tell me you disagree with my arguments, you dismiss them out of hand with by telling me they are not "supportable"-- and in the form of a lofty question.
If they are supportable, then I'd have to see the support.As of right now, I fail to, ebcause what is presented is speclationand interpretaiton with no direct link to past understandign or a plain reading.
No, your tone is not neutral, however much you think it is.
It is neutral. I've seen worse, trust me.
Try goign to Anglican Mainstream, and read the threads. Any thread.
It has soem Americans,but mainlyits English, New Zealanders,and Aussies.
My tone was intended to be neutral earlier, yet when you told me I had offended, I apologized. I didn't say, "No, I wasn't offensive." I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend." Two different things, my friend. One is dismissive, the other takes into account the professed feelings of the other party.
True, but the offence did not comefrom mere word choice or approach, but form the implicaiton. I was offended by theuse of terms such a s"Patriarichal" and "Heirarichl" and the diivisive and innacurate way those of us who do nto suppot women in ministryare depicted. I wa snot offended by simply word choice and approach.
I also note that you mean tno offnece, but it was the intent behidn the word selection,not the word selection tiself, which determien dmy responce.
The reaosn I didnt apologise and try to be different is because Ive leared int eh apst that it doenst amtter hwo hard I try, I'll revert to this anyway because htis is my natural method of speech.
It woudl take ocncentrated effort notto.
Onthe other hand, the manner of pseech fgiven int he testamonial was never hwatoffended but rather his spacific treatment of he topic and how he demonised those hw did not agree whilst not presentign an accurate picture of them.
I apologise if you where offended by the remarks on Autherial intent, but the est is just how I talk.