The Problem With Evangelism

[JAL]

No. The question is how do you know that the one who claims (is self-convinced) is actually hearing from God? How do you discern?

How do I know that someone else is hearing from God? I thought I discussed this is already. A prophet's message wouldn't carry much credibility if he alone felt 100% certainty. Thus the very nature of the gift is to convict/convince the audience at 100% certainty as well. This is why the prophet is the most effective evangelist possible. Does that answer your question? For example suppose someone walked up to me saying, "Thus saith the Lord. Pack your bags and move to Africa to preach the gospel."

How do I authenticate that message? Here's the quick recipe. I ask myself, "When he spoke those words, did I suddenly feel 100% certainty?" If not, I'm already pretty darn skeptical that it was a Word from the Lord.

It all boils down to conscience. You're asking an epistemological question. I linked you to one of my threads on that issue, if you recall. Here it is again. To summarize, conscience is authoritative (i.e. obligatory) even when the certainty is less than 100%. Please read the OP on that thread. If it's still not clear, let me know what needs to be clarified.

 

[JAL]

That's avoidance. Have you ever heard God's voice?

Saint Steven said: ↑
You don't need to have a revival meeting to hear God's voice.
He has a loud voice and a soft voice. Have you never heard God's voice?
You don't have to be a prophet to hear God's voice. You only have to be one of his.
You should try it if you haven't already. Maybe he will send you to be the public preacher. (horrors)

I'm not avoiding anything. I believe that John 10:27 applies to all believers. I also believe that God's "voice" might be a little more broad than you suspect.

If you're asking me whether I hear God speaking to me in plain English, the answer would be a definite No, aside from the one possible incident mentioned earlier where, many years ago, a minister was citing a verse and suddenly it seemed like God had suddenly entered the room and was speaking the words directly to me. That's probably the closest I've ever been to 100% certainty.

 

[Saint Steven]

I didn't see an answer to this question.

Have you ever shared the gospel with anyone? (with the "lost")

 

[JAL]

I didn't see an answer to this question.

Have you ever shared the gospel with anyone? (with the "lost")

Yes. I was indoctrinated into evangelicalism when I first got saved. At that time I believed in Sola Scriptura, Cessationism, and the Great Commission. I thought I was supposed to go out in the streets and preach the gospel, and so I did, sometimes by myself, and sometimes with church groups. That belief system lasted maybe a year.

Nonetheless I still believed in the usefulness of man-made evangelism as a crutch, as explained earlier, and since I continued to attend mainstream churches for about 12 years, I occasionally "evangelized" with them. We never saw much fruit, though, which tended to confirm my convictions that it was not what God intended. As for what God intended, please review post 139.

 

[nolidad]

Ultimately conscience properly dictates all our actions. But my various posts on this thread attempt to be a corrective to any conscience confused about the biblical definition of evangelism-proper.

As I stated earlier, I see nothing wrong with man-made evangelism as a crutch (see post 87). Also if someone asks you a question about the faith, I think it's a good opportunity to respond. But we were created primarily to talk to the Lord. He wants to hear from us. That should be our chief priority.

Huh? Conversating with a stranger or a neighbor is a sin, in my view? That's an overstatement of my position. Again:
(1) Conscience dictates everything.
(2) Our flesh is weak. None of us is likely to pray 24-7. Diversions and recreations are thus a useful, nay, necessary, crutch.
(3) We are social animals. I'm not sure it's healthy to NEVER speak to those around us. Again, as conscience directs.

So you live by an anthro-centric philosophy instead of a theo-centric philosophy.

As to your point #1 I will only give you the Word:

Proverbs 3:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

The Word of God should dictate everything and then conscience that has been bounded by the Word.

So you would disagree with the Lord Jesus Christ when He issued this command to believers:

Matthew 28:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus definitely told His disciples to obey all things He commanded the Apostles. Evangelizing the lost and dying world in the mission field He has planted us is one of those commands.

If one is to believe that the New Testament is inspired by god and profitable for all of us then we must obey this:

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

That in and out of season speaks of whether we feel like it or whether our "conscience" dictates or not.

Remember murder is sin before God whether or not one has a conscience towards it or not! there are cultures where murder is completely acceptable.

 

[nolidad]

Ultimately conscience properly dictates all our actions. But my various posts on this thread attempt to be a corrective to any conscience confused about the biblical definition of evangelism-proper.

As I stated earlier, I see nothing wrong with man-made evangelism as a crutch (see post 87). Also if someone asks you a question about the faith, I think it's a good opportunity to respond. But we were created primarily to talk to the Lord. He wants to hear from us. That should be our chief priority.

Sharing the gospel with the lost is not a man made crutch, but obedience to the one we call on as Savior and Lord--Jesus Christ!

 

[nolidad]

Thanks, but I asked about "prophetic" evangelism.

Saint Steven said: ↑
That's interesting. Could you explain the practical how-to aspects of this prophetic evangelism. I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. Thanks.

Well define what you mean by prophetic evangelism. Over 46 ears I have seen the term "prophet" for NT people defined several ways. I ask so as to not misunderstand what you ask.

 

[topher694]

Actually it's common for threads in this forum to have a fair degree of tangential discussions. But as to your complaint...
...you conveniently neglected to mention that the question in the opening post was completely open-ended, allowing for a broad-based discussion of evangelism. The article offers advice on evangelistic strategy. The OP asked us to express our opinion on said advice. My response was, to abridge what I said, "I disagree with that evangelistic strategy because here's what I consider to be the correct evangelistic strategy."

How is that NOT on topic?

It has been 14 pages of primarily YOU, and all you do is continue to push YOU. You could have put forth YOUR theory, discussed it a bit and moved on and left others to talk about their own thoughts on the matter, but you don't. You dismiss what anyone else says and go back to YOUR theory. I just said I have no interest in continuing to talk about YOUR theory, but how do you respond? By pushing it yet again. Newsflash: I've already read YOUR model. I don't need it explained again. I do not accept it for one second. You have twisted scripture to fit YOUR ideas. Whenever someone tries to point it out, you insult them and whenever someone points the insults out you cry victim. You have shown it is NOT POSSIBLE to have a civil dialog, only YOUR dialog.

Against my better judgement I'll give one nugget of example:

You ask about the least in the kingdom of God? Really? Where in that verse is there a clear commentary on the issue of evangelism, prophecy, 100% certainty, etc?

Your post seems to spew out a random set of biblical facts devoid of any strongly compelling argumentation.

Your 100% certainty is completely extrapolated. Where is the scripture that has a clear commentary on 100% certainty? Oh, fear not, I've seen your logic. You give some example of Abraham and end it with something like, "how could one not conclude 100% certainty?" That is not a clear commentary, that is inferring (And I, and everyone else don't agree, so your statement of conclusion is inaccurate). What's more is your scriptures are extremely cherry picked. You just dismiss the abundance of scripture that would appear to contradict your theory by claiming they are irrelevant. In other words you are accusing others of doing EXACT SAME THING that your entire theory is based on. It is a double standard.

This makes it functionally IMPOSSIBLE to actually have a real dialog about your ideas.


That being said, as I type this a genuine question about your theory popped into my head. I am wondering, what exactly first opened your eyes to the idea that traditional evangelism was incorrect and something different was required?

 

[JAL]

It has been 14 pages of primarily YOU, and all you do is continue to push YOU.

This is so ridiculous. Every poster defends HIS own view, not those of his opponent. The only thing appropriate here is to debate the evidence. Instead this is another personal attack.

Your 100% certainty is completely extrapolated.

Yes it's a deduction. Ever heard of the Trinity? That word is not in Scripture. It's a deduction.

You give some example of Abraham...

I gave PLENTY of examples, none refuted as yet. You want to discredit my logic? Easy enough. Start defending people who murder their kids on account of a voice they never even felt completely certain about.

 

[JAL]

And I'm still waiting for a point-by-point rebuttal of post 260, sans insults preferably.

 

[JAL]

Your 100% certainty is completely extrapolated.

Yes. It's a deduction. Has it ever occurred to you that the traditional view is a deduction? Pentecost is provided to us a paradigm. When they heard the sound of a mighty rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire falling on their heads, were they stranded in a plight of uncertainty? "Hey guys. Not sure that was God. Let's all just keep waiting."

All sides of the debate rely on deduction. The only issue here is trying to determine which deductions reflect the biblical paradigm.

 

[topher694]

Yes. It's a deduction. Has it ever occurred to you that the traditional view is a deduction? Pentecost is provided to us a paradigm. When they heard the sound of a mighty rushing Wind and saw the tongues of Fire falling on their heads, were they stranded in a plight of uncertainty? "Hey guys. Not sure that was God. Let's all just keep waiting."

All sides of the debate rely on deduction. The only issue here is trying to determine which deductions reflect the biblical paradigm.

They why do you present it as wrong when others do it? Double standard

 

[JAL]

They why do you present it as wrong when others do it? Double standard

There's a difference between a reasonably compelling deduction versus a seemingly unwarranted stretch. Exegesis isn't supposed to be an anything-goes endeavor.

 

[topher694]

Fine here you go... I'm sure this will fix everything.

Are you implying that 100% certainty is impossible? I think not, right? I mean when Paul finished Romans, did he release it with the disclaimer, "Not really sure all this stuff is true, but I sure hope it is!"

No, I am not. I have had moments of what I would call absolute certainty. I am saying personal 100% certainty is not required to be obedient to what God has already commanded us to do. For example, I do not need to praise and pray and wait to know that I should treat people with kindness and respect. And how we treat people is a form of evangelism. If an unbeliever at work asks me a question about Jesus, I don't need to say let me go home and pray and praise and wait until I am 100% certain what the answer should be. 1 Peter 3:15 says we should always be ready to share our hope.

Next question. Is God a respecter of persons? Paul was probably 100% sure of his salvation - and I'm consigned to, say, 99% certainty? Wow. That stinks. Maybe I can rephrase the problem here. When we evangelize, we are counseling people on their eternal destiny. You see the problem, don't you? Why would God want His ambassadors - His supposedly professional evangelists - to advise an unsaved person on his eternal destiny if they themselves are uncertain about eternal destiny? Doesn't make sense. Right? I mean, let's be honest, meaning, let's be honest with the unsaved person. That is to say, since you believe the evangelist is only supposed to walk in, say, 99% certainty, then you should evangelize like this:

"Hi my unsaved friend. Here's some advice about Jesus. But take it with a grain of salt, because I'm not completely sure it will get you saved. I'm not even completely sure that I am in the correct religion."

That is not the typical scenario. I am certain about my salvation. But where doubt (lack of 100% certainty) comes in is not in MY salvation, but how my unsaved friend will respond. So it usually goes more like this:

(In our mind) "I know, I'm supposed share Jesus with Billy, but I'm not sure how he is going to respond. What if he gets mad at me? What if I mess it up? I'm not good at this kind of stuff. I don't want to lose him as a friend."

God is not a respecter of persons means you are just as empowered and just as anointed to share the gospel with Billy as anyone else. If you are the one best positioned to talk to Billy, God will use you to do so, even if you doubt yourself.

In 2 Cor 12, Paul said he boasted in his infirmities (didn't hide from his weaknesses), because that is when the power of Christ rested upon him, when he was weakest Christ made him strong. When we have doubt, or fear and we do it anyway, Christ strengthens us because it is His power not our own. This wonderful because not only can we be a blessing to others, but it teaches us how to better trust Jesus and deepens our relationship with Him at the same time. There is nothing more impactful than going out of your comfort zone, trusting Jesus, and seeing Him do amazing things through you.

In fact, that's how I currently speak to unbelievers, if they ask me about my religion. I'm totally honest with them - honest about the fact that I am not 100% certain.

I'm glad you're honest. I'm sad you are uncertain. As stated before we are commended to share our hope, I see nothing that says we are to share our uncertainty. Share your hope, be kind, be a light. If someone asks me about my marriage, I can share my insights and advice without sharing every personal detail. I can judge what is appropriate to share or not. That's totally fine. And withholding some personal this is not being dishonest, it's being wise.

Now here's the problem. When I read the book of Acts, I see no evidence of such honesty - no such disclaimers. Rather the apostles talked like this (to paraphrase).

You are exactly right, here is the problem. As I said, I do have absolute certainty in my salvation. I believe the Apostles and the early church did as well. The uncertainty isn't in that part, it's in another part. You are projecting YOUR uncertainty on everyone else, including those in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that we should talk to unbelievers they way you do? It doesn't. We are simply supposed to share what Jesus has personally done for us (our testimony, our hope). Because that is something we can be certain about.

"Repent, and accept Jesus as savior. Otherwise you are doomed to hell."

Interesting that you chose this terminology. In Matthew 11, John the Baptist is in prison and hears of Jesus' miracles. At this point John has already interacted with Jesus and baptized Him. He has already said Jesus was greater and that he, John, wasn't fit to bend down and untie Jesus' sandals. Yet look what John sends his disciples to ask Jesus in verse 3: “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Sounds like John still wasn't 100% certain about Jesus, in spite of the things that had already happened.

I see two options here:
(1) Perhaps I am more honest than they were. I am willing to hedge my words with disclaimers, whereas they were too dishonest to admit their uncertainty.
(2) OR, perhaps they preached with 100% certainty.

Now, as I've demonstrated earlier, NT evangelism is defined as prophetic utterance. Given the very gravity of prophecy, I think #2 is a safer bet.

This is also part of the problem. You only see 2 options. Either you are better than them, or they are better than you.
Option (3): You've got your own issues to work out (as we all do). That's not a reason for others to not share their faith. One can have confidence in their own salvation and still have uncertainty in their direction.

It's called working out our salvation (Phil 2:12). Phil 2 isn't talking about being certain or uncertain it is talking about getting a greater and greater understanding of what our salvation means to us personally and while that is going on God will continually work in us and through us, we don't need to wait to do what is right.

See what I did? I argued my position. I didn't just assert it, fronting the assertion with a series of personal attacks.

Disagreeing with you and pointing out the potential harm of your stand is not a personal attack. Yet I already apologized if I crossed a line. Additionally I've pointed out several times you have indeed personally attacked others, especially their ability understand or their personal spiritual standing. You have yet to apologize or even acknowledge any of it.

 

[topher694]

There's a difference between a reasonably compelling deduction versus a seemingly unwarranted stretch. Exegesis isn't supposed to be an anything-goes endeavor.

Sheesh, exactly my point. For you it's deduction for anyone else it is a seemingly unwarranted stretch? You refuse to even consider anything but YOU. Even when you admit your view is not the widely accepted one. Double standard.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you think?

The Confessions of a Recovering Evangelist

Very frequently I hear and see people point to St. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens as evidence that we should go and invade people's personal bubble to preach at them. The thing that seems to be ignored is that this was a place in Athens where people specifically went to have debates and conversations about philosophy and religion. So when Paul goes and strikes up chit-chat with the various people there, he isn't harassing them, he is by-and-large welcome to come and share his thoughts. Some, of course, found the things he said ridiculous and dismissed him, but others said they wanted to hear more.

What we never see is the Apostles berating, harassing, or otherwise disrespecting people. And, lest we forget, these were apostles--those whose very specific calling was to go out, sent forth, for this very express and explicit purpose.

And that, it would seem, is something that gets ignored as well. St. Paul himself is clear that not everyone has the same calling, the same vocation. Not everyone, he says, is an apostle, a preacher, or an evangelist.

We are all called to respectfully and kindly provide an answer for what we believe, as St. Peter says. So that when we are questioned, we can share what we believe in a kind and respectful manner. But not everyone is called to walk up to strangers and preach at them. In fact, there are good arguments to be made that sometimes it's not a good idea to do this. Expecting a brand new convert to have the knowledge and wherewithal to do that is a pretty terrible idea, that doesn't mean a brand new convert can't share their experience, or be happy about what's happened to them.

And so it's important to know what evangelism is and what evangelism isn't.

Evangelism is not preaching at people to condemn them, and it is not trying to argue a person into converting. Evangelism is not yelling at people. Evangelism is not harassing people. Evangelism is not berating people or beating them over the head with a Bible. Evangelism is not hell and brimstone rants on a street corner.

Evangelism is the proclamation of what God has done for you, me, and everyone through Jesus; there is no evangelism without the Evangel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

Fine here you go... I'm sure this will fix everything.
No, I am not. I have had moments of what I would call absolute certainty. I am saying personal 100% certainty is not required to be obedient to what God has already commanded us to do. For example, I do not need to praise and pray and wait to know that I should treat people with kindness and respect. And how we treat people is a form of evangelism. If an unbeliever at work asks me a question about Jesus, I don't need to say let me go home and pray and praise and wait until I am 100% certain what the answer should be. 1 Peter 3:15 says we should always be ready to share our hope.

Strawman. 1 Peter 3:15 was already addressed. The primacy of conscience was also mentioned. Nothing relevant here.

That is not the typical scenario. I am certain about my salvation.

Oh, so you ARE 100% certain of your salvation. And you ARE 100% certain of the gospel. That's odd, since you've been condemning me for an entire thread for postulating 100% certainty. You told me it was a self--created ideal that makes zero sense.

As I said, I do have absolute certainty in my salvation.

That would be 100% certainty. The very concept you condemned me for. This makes it difficult to respond to your post because I don't know how to take you. You seem to be equivocating.

Maybe what you're saying is that we can only be 100% certain of our salvation, we can never be 100% certain of God's specific will. But that flies in the face of much of the data.

Yet look what John sends his disciples to ask Jesus in verse 3: “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Sounds like John still wasn't 100% certain about Jesus, in spite of the things that had already happened.

As stated, 100% certainty isn't always 24-7 (except perhaps for Jesus) and not on all issues (even Jesus had limited knowledge on earth).

One can have confidence in their own salvation and still have uncertainty in their direction.

Uncertainty is possible. Obviously. And?
Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. If God is willing to give me 100% certainty on my OWN salvation, why would He not be willing to give me 100% certainty on how to most effectively reach out to 100 billion souls? You don't see that your position casts aspersions on God?

100% certainty appears to be His most effective messaging-tool. Why not put it to use? My position puts the blame on MEN - it claims that men lack 100% certainty for failure to align with God. YOUR position makes it look like God doesn't WANT to use His best tool. That insinuates, as mentioned earlier, that He doesn't much care about whether the 200,000 residents of Hiroshima live or die. Even if that soldier WANTED absolute certainty before dropping the bomb, God categorically refuses to help. Huh?

(1) He apparently doesn't care much for the 200,000.
(2) He apparently doesn't care much for the 100 billion.

Look, even if I'm WRONG about 100% certainty, there's too much at stake here. I still need to be sure - 100% certain - which approach is right, whether yours or mine. So even if I'm wrong, in principle I'm still right. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said that my deduction seems more compelling than yours.

It's called working out our salvation (Phil 2:12). Phil 2 isn't talking about being certain or uncertain it is talking about getting a greater and greater understanding of what our salvation means to us personally and while that is going on God will continually work in us and through us, we don't need to wait to do what is right.

Strawman. Conscience dictates, as I've stated repeatedly. No disagreement there.

However, conscience is often misinformed. For example traditional views might bias our conscience to feel obligated to evangelize even without 100% certainty. My posts here are a corrective to that error.

Disagreeing with you and pointing out the potential harm of your stand is not a personal attack. Yet I already apologized if I crossed a line.

I appreciated the apology but then later you resumed in the same vein.

Additionally I've pointed out several times you have indeed personally attacked others, especially their ability understand or their personal spiritual standing. You have yet to apologize or even acknowledge any of it.

I focus mostly on arguments, not on personal attacks. I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.

 

[JAL]

Sheesh, exactly my point. For you it's deduction for anyone else it is a seemingly unwarranted stretch? You refuse to even consider anything but YOU. Even when you admit your view is not the widely accepted one. Double standard.

See post 297.

 

[topher694]

Strawman. 1 Peter 3:15 was already addressed. The primacy of conscience was also mentioned. Nothing relevant here.
Oh, so you ARE 100% certain of your salvation. And you ARE 100% certain of the gospel. That's odd, since you've been condemning me for an entire thread for postulating 100% certainty. You told me it was a self--created ideal that makes zero sense.

That would be 100% certainty. The very concept you condemned me for. This makes it difficult to respond to your post because I don't know how to take you. You seem to be equivocating.

Maybe what you're saying is that we can only be 100% certain of our salvation, we can never be 100% certain of God's specific will. But that flies in the face of much of the data.

As stated, 100% certainty isn't always 24-7 (except perhaps for Jesus) and not on all issues (even Jesus had limited knowledge on earth).


Uncertainty is possible. Obviously. And?
Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. If God is willing to give me 100% certainty on my OWN salvation, why would He not be willing to give me 100% certainty on how to most effectively reach out to 100 billion souls? You don't see that your position casts aspersions on God?

100% certainty appears to be His most effective messaging-tool. Why not put it to use? My position puts the blame on MEN - it claims that men lack 100% certainty for failure to align with God. YOUR position makes it look like God doesn't WANT to use His best tool. That insinuates, as mentioned earlier, that He doesn't much care about whether the 200,000 residents of Hiroshima live or die. Even if that soldier WANTED absolute certainty before dropping the bomb, God categorically refuses to help. Huh?

(1) He apparently doesn't care much for the 200,000.
(2) He apparently doesn't care much for the 100 billion.

Look, even if I'm WRONG about 100% certainty, there's too much at stake here. I still need to be sure - 100% certain - which approach is right, whether yours or mine. So even if I'm wrong, in principle I'm still right. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said that my deduction seems more compelling than yours.

Strawman. Conscience dictates, as I've stated repeatedly. No disagreement there.

However, conscience is often misinformed. For example traditional views might bias our conscience to feel obligated to evangelize even without 100% certainty. My posts here are a corrective to that error.


I appreciated the apology but then later you resumed in the same vein.
I focus mostly on arguments, not on personal attacks. I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.

So what did my responding to your argument accomplish?

 

[topher694]

Strawman. 1 Peter 3:15 was already addressed. The primacy of conscience was also mentioned. Nothing relevant here.
Oh, so you ARE 100% certain of your salvation. And you ARE 100% certain of the gospel. That's odd, since you've been condemning me for an entire thread for postulating 100% certainty. You told me it was a self--created ideal that makes zero sense.

That would be 100% certainty. The very concept you condemned me for. This makes it difficult to respond to your post because I don't know how to take you. You seem to be equivocating.

Maybe what you're saying is that we can only be 100% certain of our salvation, we can never be 100% certain of God's specific will. But that flies in the face of much of the data.

As stated, 100% certainty isn't always 24-7 (except perhaps for Jesus) and not on all issues (even Jesus had limited knowledge on earth).


Uncertainty is possible. Obviously. And?
Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. If God is willing to give me 100% certainty on my OWN salvation, why would He not be willing to give me 100% certainty on how to most effectively reach out to 100 billion souls? You don't see that your position casts aspersions on God?

100% certainty appears to be His most effective messaging-tool. Why not put it to use? My position puts the blame on MEN - it claims that men lack 100% certainty for failure to align with God. YOUR position makes it look like God doesn't WANT to use His best tool. That insinuates, as mentioned earlier, that He doesn't much care about whether the 200,000 residents of Hiroshima live or die. Even if that soldier WANTED absolute certainty before dropping the bomb, God categorically refuses to help. Huh?

(1) He apparently doesn't care much for the 200,000.
(2) He apparently doesn't care much for the 100 billion.

Look, even if I'm WRONG about 100% certainty, there's too much at stake here. I still need to be sure - 100% certain - which approach is right, whether yours or mine. So even if I'm wrong, in principle I'm still right. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said that my deduction seems more compelling than yours.

Strawman. Conscience dictates, as I've stated repeatedly. No disagreement there.

However, conscience is often misinformed. For example traditional views might bias our conscience to feel obligated to evangelize even without 100% certainty. My posts here are a corrective to that error.


I appreciated the apology but then later you resumed in the same vein.
I focus mostly on arguments, not on personal attacks. I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.

Nothing relevant here.
(See I can do it too, doesn't make it true)