As to the charge of mispelling, I plead guilty as charged. I did slip an extra "i" in there, for whatever significance you'd like to make of that.

As far as having problems spelling big words, you are wrong about that. I have problems spelling all words. As I typed this paragraph alone, I have corrected no less than ten typos and mispellings. Make that eleven.

If I can be an object of your derision based on such a small matter, then I will gladly accept your scorn.

Regarding the word "portentous", I was using the most common definition -- of or relating to a portent, meaning something which foreshadows.

Next, I'd like to direct your attention to the categorization on the upper-right hand corner of this post. Note the word "Humor". That signals, to observant readers, that the comment is not to be taken in a strict literal sense, as you seem to have in your rebutting dissertation. This is no more a theological exegesis than would be a joke which suggested the disciples drove a Honda because the bible says they "were all in one Accord."

You say I "falsely" interpret the intent of the verse. I plead to "falsely" intepreting this verse -- where the author clearly did not mean for "right" and "left" to refer to today's political parties -- in the same sense the teller of the Honda joke is "falsely" implying Luke was referring to a modern automobile.

I expected this would be patently obvious to readers, and thus in no danger as being perceived as a serious attempt to deceive. Clearly, I was wrong.

As such, I apologize for being insufficiently clear as to whether I really meant that. And for any who might have been similarly misled, let me state clearly: "I do not, have not, and never meant to imply that King Solomon was actually a prophet who foresaw today's US political parties and meant this verse as a contemporary critique of Democrats."

Oh, and I suppose I should add this: "I also do not believe Luke intended to imply the disciples drove a mid-sized Japanese automobile."

(It's clear they would have needed a minivan, at least.)

However, seriously: I do suspect there is something subtle and perverse, in a subconscious way, about the way the political left chose the biblically unfavored hand as it's descriptor. And I also do think the verse's plain meaning has modern political implications.

Finally, I might be taken to task for the crime of having used humor or exaggeration in a religious context. Again, I plead guilty as charged -- on two counts, as I have invoked the dreaded Honda joke as well, not to mention the lesser-known minivan rejoinder.

In my defense, I would only note that I am in the company of Paul, who used copious dark humor, sarcasm, and/or exaggeration, pretending, for example, that he didn't even know himself in 2 Corinthians 12 (that liar!), and suggesting his opponents cut their own testicles off in Galatians 5.

You can rest assured you have now safely diffused the whatever grave theological threat this short, short post represented, as well as having extracted a confession of my wrongdoing on several counts.

I hope, O brave person who won't even share his name, that it has served whatever ego needs you require. Glad to be of service. A fool for Christ? Yes, you bet. I'm pleased he'll take me anyway, and am deeply grateful (or should I have left that spelled "greatful", as I first typed it, to give you another boost?) that He would have me, faults, mispellings, levity, and all.

May God bless you with the same joy or more!