Both Sad And Frustrating....

[aspen]

Ok here is a generalization.....I admit it, but it seems to ring true. Why is it that people who post on internet boards, those who tend to use sarcasm, name-calling and personal attacks in their posts as a normal part of their posting behavior, are the first to get offended (claiming that a simple disagreement is actually a personal attack) when another person disagrees with them? Both the consistency of the behavior and the utter blindness involved would been almost humorous if it wasn't so tragic! If you do not believe me, take a look around the boards - not just this one.

I think it is important to remember that being right is not important - learning and loving is the important part of dialogue - and nonChristians are watching us. And believe me, they are not impressed by the person declaring victory over the fellow Christian they just annihilated, either - they are looking at the bigger picture - the one we seem to have lost in the details of all the imaginary disagreements we manufacture to support our egos - which is, look at those Christians that are claiming to be righteous and loving, yet are not even able to agree with each other.......

Peace.

Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently engaging in a rather nasty religious debate. Here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)

3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

 

[Rach1370]

This is a truly awesome post Aspen!!
Its so very true!
I don't mind talking about things, in fact I love talk about my faith with other Christians, but sometimes you have to wonder how many brothers and sisters in Christ are on this board.
I do wish we would remember that its really about love! (and saying this I do acknowledge my own propensity to get caught up in an argument!)
If only we could all remember Jesus with every word we type!
Rach

 

[Martin W.]

The biggest mistake most Christians make is forgetting that you are to change yourself.

Most people prefer to try to change somebody else.

They find it much more enjoyable than trying to change themselves.

Christian forums give them a pulpit to preach from.

Even though they are not qualified .

Their main audience is themselves and the suckers they can antagonize.

That is the game they play.

Do not be easily suckered.

Martin W.

 

[aspen]

Yes....we need to work with God through submission for the sanctification of our hearts

Peace

 

[veteran]

Sounds like the exact principles Leftist-Socialists use.

When they are proven wrong, they resort to name calling and slander, like little children who will do anything to get their way.

And the Leftist-Socialists do make some really wild and outrageous claims while disregarding the facts.

And since one of the principles of Socialist-Communism is to never given in, not even an inch, that especially applies to them.

 

[SaberTruth]

I'm burned out on all the mudwrestling. I used to go a few rounds with new people in the hope they might back off or mellow, but experience tells me it's best to just walk away. If someone reacts to a reasonable challenge to their claim with attacks on the challenger's motives or character or intelligence (or salvation), that's a red flag to me. Of course it's good to be concerned and ask a person about their understanding of the gospel, but not to base it on where they stand on a secondary issue. But it's getting harder every day to find people who can disagree with civility, although everyone seems to have their own idea of what that means. It can get complicated.

 

[aspen]

A few observations......

1. Nonconformity among Christians regarding exegesis is wrong

2. When confronted with an example of nonconforming exegesis, a strong response is required

3. Confrontation assumes one person is absolutely wrong; possibly through ignorance, but probably through a willful desire to teach heresy.

4. A compassionate re-direction from orthodoxy is 'I'm not sure what your church is teaching you'; a more forceful approach is to point out that the nonconforming post is pagan in origin or mocking the gospel.

5. Any attempt by the author of the nonconforming post to point out behavior or protest any perceived ill-treatment by orthodoxy must be met with a swift response like "stop whining!" or "how dare you!" or "you are calling Jesus a liar!"

6. Shutting down all conversation is the goal - and the ends justify the means so the use of confrontational language, sarcasm, negative assumptions, and dismissing phrases like "obviously you know nothing about the Bible" and "why don't you go learn something before you open your mouth about the Bible" or "your heresy proves that you are not a Christian", are welcome.

Here's my issue:

This approach to differences in exegeses assumes that Christians are constantly under attack and that correct understanding of doctrine saves and that people can be argued into the Kingdom. I think these kind of ideas scream out to the world that we are afraid of dialog, we have all the answers, and if the world would just sit down - shut up - and listen to us, everything would be ok. The results are frightening to me - I am a Christian and I get intimidated by this type of witnessing - how do you think nonChristians feel? Also, it creates a feeling of hostility between the world and the Christian - 'we are fighting a battle - and we will use what ever means necessary to present the gospel' and even more frightening, 'we will not allow anyone to get in our way - even the people we are witnessing to'.

So here are my questions:

1. Do you have to be a Reformed Theologian in order to be allowed to discuss the Bible without confrontation?

2. Why is nonconformity in exegesis so threatening?

3. Is conforming yourself to God's word simply memorizing scripture and avoiding all critical thought as much as possible?

4. Is a strong, confrontational, powerful presentation of the gospel a more effective witness than simply promoting a personal account of a saving relationship with Jesus by engaging in relationship with people you are witnessing to?

Peace

 

[veteran]

Aspen, that's all a very seemingly logical explanation, but a major component is missing.

And that is with those who follow doctrines outside The Bible that cannot be derived from exegesis using common sense.

For example, how can God be seen as blessing David for a sin like murder which you said on another post?

The Bible shows just the opposite, that even when one of God's chosen like David sinned against Him, God punished him for it. Just how did God punish David for causing Bathsheba's husband Uriah to be put in front of battle so he could take Uriah's wife?


You posted the following on the Does the end justify the means thread...

Quote Aspen

I am saying that looking at the morality of the OT, one might be convinced that it teaches this type of morality

- Lot offered his daughters to a mob for sex / they slept with Lot and became pregnant by their own father
- Abraham lied about his wife being his sister / slept with Hagar to make sure he had offspring
- Jacob 'duped' Esau out of his blessing and tricked Issac into giving it to him.
- Pharaoh was duped by Moses and by God
- Several civilizations were completely annihilated - down to the slaughtering of the animals in order to secure land
- Kings advocated babies to be cut in half to make a moral point
- David murders Uriah in order to cover up sleeping with his wife and is blessed for it.
- A prophet called bears out of the wilderness to eat children who teased him about being bald

I could go on and on.....

And I covered each one of those flawed reasonings in that same thread to show how wrong you are about them.

 

[aspen]

Aspen, that's all a very seemingly logical explanation, but a major component is missing. And that is with those who follow doctrines outside The Bible that cannot be derived from exegesis using common sense.

This statement barely makes sense so I will try to address it, but if I fail, I will need clarification. I think you are claiming that people who bring in outside doctrines into their exegesis and therefore come up with wild ideas which a clear reading of the scriptures would obviously discredit - am I on the right track?

If this is your point, it assumes that your own exegesis is based on common sense and anything that deviates from your conclusions is based on outside doctrines. I think this is exactly the problem I was trying to point out. It leaves no room for higher thought or discussion - instead it calls for your audience to conform to your correct exegesis without delay - it appears haughty and arrogant to the listener and invites you to resort to sarcasm and insults to force your point until you finally dismiss them. My point is, I think it is sad that dialogue between equals is not possible when this mindset is present.

For example, how can God be seen as blessing David for a sin like murder which you said on another post?

Jesus came from the line of David through Bathsheba - I call that a blessing. BTW....I will be addressing your response to my other post soon.

Peace

 

[religusnut]

This is a good thread.

I am new here and I do try hard not to be sarcastic although I probably am at times. I think we can all be a little bit especially when we disagree with what other say especially in a strong way.


Unlike a lot of those that I run into on forums I personally do not have the formal education that many appear to have. I do have many many hours of study however that are not formal in essence I dug it out here there and yonder.

Also I have found over the years when dealing with the things of God I like to look at them and learn them and then apply them practically. I have found that if they work I use them if they do not then I back up and look at them.

Many things I find on forums are intelligent arguments. The thing with me is that a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. I think one of the things that amazes me most many times is there are always people that tell you hey you can't do that and I am doing it.....

I find a lot of this when talking about things like The Holy Spirit especially and things like healing and so forth.

Don't know that this all makes sense but it seems to work better than anything else I see out there for me anyway.

Many times I am saddened by discussions I have with people that seem to have all of the answers but their answers are 180 degrees from my answers and mine are working and theirs are just arguments that they pulled together from their studies.


Hope everybody has a great day.

Nutttt