Divided Methodists

[One Bad Pig]

How can it be a deflection when that centers on my point?

Because you're the only one actually being passive-aggressive here; it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to suggest otherwise.

[simplicio]

Because you're the only one actually being passive-aggressive here; it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to suggest otherwise.

And is it wrong to push back on unfounded charges, and calumnies?

I am suggesting that the double standard is hypocritical, few Christians on here are held to any standard.

[Sparko]

Sparko? Rogue? You've fallen uncharacteristically silent! Considering how you both have tossed the term troll around,

One way to account for the silence is the idea that trolling, attacking Christians, dividing the Body is accepted, as long as it follows the political divide. I certainly fall on the wrong side of the political divide, but definitely not any religious divide, unless Trumpianity has become an accepted denomination with Christianity.

First floor is not dirt floor, Jim L is not lamebrain. But hey, who cares?

Could be because I am not in this thread. I just was looking at recent threads and saw my name here. Not even going to subscribe to it either. No idea what it is about and don't care.

I am touched that you care so much about me. I guess I really have earned my title as "Troll Magnet" yet again.

Bye-eeeee.

[One Bad Pig]

And is it wrong to push back on unfounded charges, and calumnies?

Not when they're actually shown to be such.

I am suggesting that the double standard is hypocritical, few Christians on here are held to any standard.

Yeah, all you ever do is suggest - typical of trolls. I see you've gotten the Charles seal of approval.

Note that I am not calling you out for boorish behavior. I am calling you out for passive-aggressive attempts at division whilst simultaneously condemning "divisive" posters. It is indeed rich that you are hypocritically calling out hypocrisy. Nearly every thread you start is a blatant attempt at sowing division, and nearly every substantive post you make is an excercise in sowing obfuscation, not clarity. Double standard, indeed.

[Juvenal]

Yeah, all you ever do is suggest - typical of trolls.

The first part is true. The second is convenient. Oddly enough, I can't think of a troll around here who stopped at suggestions. Maybe your memory is better than mine.

Y'all know you're ticked because he's got you dead to rights on MM's behavior. Christians who pass over that behavior because of their shared Christianity become complicit. And when they go beyond that, to attack other Christians who choose not to be complicit, they're being divisive.

It's arguing from paradox to say pushing back at divisive behavior is itself divisive.

No matter how much you need it to be in order to turn the attack back on the attacker, an argument from paradox isn't sound. It's not even valid.

Trust me on this.

[simplicio]

I specifically named the behaviors. Either those behaviors are acceptable or not. Since I see them as dishonest, childish, and churlish, I think they are wrong. Changing the contents of the quote box and name calling is hardly acceptable. And it is worth noting that the moment I explicitly called it out on this thread, the thread languished, dead.

Christianity is not a bunch of atomized ideas and principles, it is a "whole ball of wax" thing, all or nothing. I have focused on two things: racism and abortion. Did you know that Christian orthodoxy tells us that Black Americans can get to heaven? That is a ridiculous question, but one which is important. No Christian here would (explicitly) argue that blacks have a barrier to heaven, but implicitly, the arguments have been made. There is a divide existing between white Christians and black Christians, and (white) Christians here have made the case that the attitudes and dispositions common to black American Christians, attitudes which differentiate them from white evangelicals, bar them from heaven.

Abortion is important, and the two major fronts of the anti-abortion cultural war are the laws proposed at the state legislatures, and the ecumenical National March for Life. The annual march for life is more than an example of political action of the secular sphere. It is an extension of the ecclesial function of the Body of Christ, salt and light, of Christianity acting collectively in the public square. Either the March for Life is no big deal or the most important salvo in the spiritual front of this cultural war; likewise, either the resolutions of the SBC are of no real consequence or they represent an important function of the church in the public square and an example of Baptists performing their ecclesial and spiritual role. The laws proposed at the state level should be focused on moving the debate forward, the question is whether the reaching for the absurd extremes is effective pandering to a base.

Edit: I attached this to the wrong poster. An appeal to the spiritual function in ecclesiology would hardly be persuasive to a nonChristian like Juvenal.

[One Bad Pig]

The first part is true. The second is convenient. Oddly enough, I can't think of a troll around here who stopped at suggestions. Maybe your memory is better than mine.

Charles is pretty good at it.

Y'all know you're ticked because he's got you dead to rights on MM's behavior. Christians who pass over that behavior because of their shared Christianity become complicit. And when they go beyond that, to attack other Christians who choose not to be complicit, they're being divisive.

It's arguing from paradox to say pushing back at divisive behavior is itself divisive.

No matter how much you need it to be in order to turn the attack back on the attacker, an argument from paradox isn't sound. It's not even valid.

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed. Maybe don't assume you can read my mind, k? I think MM's behavior of changing user names is juvenile, but simplicio's behavior is far more repugnant. I'm not convinced that simplicio is in fact a Christian, because he has this tendency to attack them. Given his general animosity to other Christians here, I suspect that he's merely using MM's behavior as something else with which to beat us over the head. I could be wrong on that; we're both operating from the same data but drawing different conclusions. Because we see thing differently, it's not exactly a solid argument you're making here.

Trust me on this.

Like I should trust your (nonexistent) mindreading skills?

[Juvenal]

Charles is pretty good at it.

I'm willing to take your word that Charles is an exemplar while withholding judgment on whether he's actually good.

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed. Maybe don't assume you can read my mind, k?

I was aiming for self-fulfilling prophecy.

I agree, I missed.

I think MM's behavior of changing user names is juvenile, but simplicio's behavior is far more repugnant.

We don't agree on this.

And further, I'd argue that the latter characterization is better suited for, say, Sam's treatment, when he was pushed from the board via a change in the moderation rules to support poor behavior by one of the board owners.

simplicio argues that "few Christians on here are held to any standard." He's right. It's only the Christians holding to Christian standards who are held to account. Publicly, I should add. You're still in bonus credits in my book. I won't put you on the spot by naming the incident.

I'm not convinced that simplicio is in fact a Christian, because he has this tendency to attack them. Given his general animosity to other Christians here, I suspect that he's merely using MM's behavior as something else with which to beat us over the head. I could be wrong on that; we're both operating from the same data but drawing different conclusions. Because we see thing differently, it's not exactly a solid argument you're making here.

MM's behavior out-heathens the heathens, which is why I'm willing to let you slide on questioning his faith. Hell, if you kicked him off the team, we'd be talking quietly about adequate compensation for taking him back.




There's surely a lot more than MM's behavior to beat you with, but if you're being beat, it's with clubs of your own devising. The same freedom from heavy moderation that allows simplicio to attack unchristian behavior allows you to do the same. You are just as free as simplicio to call it out.

Instead, you call out simplicio.

That's going to leave a mark.

Like I should trust your (nonexistent) mindreading skills?

The ability to judge valid reasoning doesn't depend on mind-reading skills, perfect hair, or virtuosity on the violin, not that I'm claiming any special affinity to strings. And whatever affinity I might have for valid reasoning, it was never my intention to suggest I held some esoteric knowledge that allowed only the chosen few to arrive at the conclusion.

Because it's not.

That's why you should trust me on this. Or don't trust me on this. Check with someone else, anyone who's taken and passed even the most introductory course in logic. An argument from paradox is not valid.


Here's the paradox.

Bad behavior is divisive. Calling out bad behavior is divisive.


simplicio is calling out bad behavior. Among Christians, in principle, it doesn't need to be divisive. That principle comes with a formula that neither excludes public rebuke nor, ironically enough, takes note that Paul's letters don't satisfy the formula.


Here's the irony.

He called out Peter, the first pope and founder of Roman Catholicism, whence simplicio, who called me out on it, too, arrives with Christian values of civility, comity, and charity, the greatest of these.


He has this tendency to attack atheists.