You're losing the thread. I didn't say the Bible implied something, I said calling yourself a believer in a Bible-based religion implied something. Not the same at all.
While I appreciate the opportunity to learn who Boyarin is, I have no idea how it applies to me.
I’ve responded with several sources that show a generic use
Really? I've gone back through your posts and can't find one. Could you post them again, or tell me which post they were in?
I was talking about the part that begins,...
So does that mean you acknowledge that you're using a definition other than the one usually used in popular writing in the U.S. today? That's fine. But I don't think it's worth criticizing someone for instead using the most common definition and expecting other people to understand it. I think if you're going to use the uncommon definition, it's up to you to qualify your usage.
You’re playing games. You make a distinction with no difference. Anything to change the subject, and erect a sidetrack.
”While I appreciate the opportunity to learn who Boyarin is, I have no idea how it applies to me.”
ZOOM! Right over your head.”
”I've gone back through your posts and can't find one.”
Next step in the Artful Dodger’s grab bag of diversions. Send your correspondent galloping off on a fool’s errand.
”So does that mean you acknowledge that you're using a definition other than the one usually used in popular writing in the U.S. today?”
No. It means I was quoting one of the definitions you had cited.
I’ve asked if you are sincere in your indifference to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support. You must have overlooked that query. What’s the scoop?