Looking for substance in your remarks, I find this:
This is actually a very poor analogy. As it happens, the CONTENT (or "significance") of apple pie really can change from "dispensation to dispensation." Consider: are you baking it for Thanksgiving Dinner? For a bake sale? For your kid's kindergarten play? To impress a girl?
That’s not CONTENT in Ryrie’s statement, but OBJECT. What is the OBJECT or reason for making the pie.
Face it. Gianello nailed it.
But the significance -- or meaning -- of my making the pie is, obviously, different if I'm making it for a bake sale, or trying to impress a girl.
Interestingly, Mr. Gianello never does actually give a good description of what he thinks the unchanging "CONTENT" of Christianity is supposed to be -- and I'm not going to argue about it anyway. I'm just pointing out that his analogy is piss-poor.
Face it. Gianello nailed it.
Well, no. For him to have "nailed it" would require that his point was understandable -- which it is not. The article is a mess of strawman/ad hominem which never really does say what's wrong with Ryrie's statement.
I learned a long time ago not to deal with religious ranters who focus on some other guy's obscure "ism." The first clue was that said ranter uses CAPITAL LETTERS to make his points (such as they are).
And no, I don't much care to argue "isms" with you, either.