[stephenroehm]

Praxaeus, the screenshot that you linked to from the "actual" Thayer's Lexicon contains the EXACT same information as what I posted just in a different format and the citation of Zodhaites and AT Robertson also contain extremely similar information. What is your point? All I see is that you want to try to appear to be more intelligent than other people who are using the same "outdated, ancient, and obsolete" means of study that you yourself cited in your example.

Nice double standard.

While we're at it, let's look at some of the definitions used by the "serious" Lexicon you posted:

Easy, light, simple, common, bad, being low-grade or morally substandard, those who do not reflect in their behavior the high status they could enjoy as pers. destined for ‘deathless knowledge’, one who does not speak flippantly or without sufficient thought, the contrast between socially responsible parents and irresponsible children, may refer to the performance of those under judgment: whether one has led a high-grade or a low-grade life.

"Easy, light, simple, common, bad, being low-grade or morally substandard" are exactly the same or synonymous with the definitions I posted.

"Those who do not reflect in their behavior the high status they could enjoy as persons destined for 'deathless knowledge'" is the essence of the message that I was conveying in the OP.

"One who does not speak flippantly or without sufficient thought" and "the contrast between socially responsible parents and irresponsible children" are the only potential definitions that weren't represented in the OP and in the "outdated" resource I used.

Zodhaites adds Vile, evil, wicked, foul, corrupt, good-for-nothing, depraved, worthless, mediocre, unimportant. Again, these are exactly the same or synonymous with the definitions I posted. Robertson simply uses worthless and wicked, again synonymous or exactly the same as what I posted.

According to the sources you cited, you have actually done more to support my original post that equates "ordinary, normal, and easy" Christian living with that which is "low-grade, bad, morally substandard, evil, or wicked".

Now do you want to continue trying to convince me that my study is substandard or do you want to discuss the content of the message, which is that those who practice lacy-grace and counterfeit Christianity hate the light and refuse to come to it because they don't want their lifestyle to be exposed, which would put them in a position where they could either continue living an unpleasing lifestyle in the eyes of God or conform to His ways?