Norm's Honest Questions About Screwballs

[jpholding]

To keep the Screwball thread from being cluttered, I'm starting a new one on this subject.

How can christians compare themselves to Jesus in this way?

The same way they might compare themselves in other ways. It's up to you explain why things should be different.

Jesus had a specific audience in a specific time

The same thing could be said to dismiss anything Jesus said or did, as stated. You need a better developed reason than that. You also need to show that our "time" is right. Otherwise this is no better than the atheist who says, "Blood atonement is the sort of thing people accepted 2000 years ago."

The pharisees missed what should have been as obvious to them as the noses on their faces.

So do the people who get nominated as Screwballs.

Not only missed him, but actively condemned him

That's what the people nominated as Screwballs do too. They actively condemn those who they do not agree with.

In order to try to attempt to get through their mindset, he used some very strong language.

So do we, though Jesus was not trying to get through to them. He was trying to publicly shame them before others.

He didn't turn it into a monthly sport.

I'm not sure what the regularity has to do with anything. Jesus probably had contests like these any time a Pharisee or other opponent like a Saducee came along. Socially he stood against them and they would see it as their duty to try to put Jesus down. Chances are he had confrontations all through the day while in Jerusalem. And the Pharisees came all the way to Galilee to try to humiliate him; those would happen less often, if only because it was less convenient for his opponents.

He didn't continue to hammer them with it over and over and over again. He didn't make a verbal game out of coming up with new amnd funny ways to insult them.

Actually, yes, he did. That was the whole point of these contests. It was just like a modern game of the dozens. The best verbal jouster won.

Jesus was speaking from his heart, out of what I am sure was anger and frustration with people he knew very well.

"Knew very well"??? The Pharisees? Are you serious? Do you honestly think Jesus went out for beers with these guys later? Are you sure you're not remaking Jesus in your own image and likeness here?

Also, in such contests, a cool head was a virtue. So anger and frustration was the last thing to be shown.

How can you compare this internet forum, which is full of people of many different faiths, non-faiths, and backgrounds, with that?

Not sure what "different faiths" etc has to do with anything here. If you're saying Jesus would have done different had some Roman or Confucian showed up, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.

Please spell it out for me someone because I don't see it.

I just gave it the old college try. Now let's see how you do dissecting it....

[Kelp]

To keep the Screwball thread from being cluttered, I'm starting a new one on this subject.


The same way they might compare themselves in other ways. It's up to you explain why things should be different.



The same thing could be said to dismiss anything Jesus said or did, as stated. You need a better developed reason than that. You also need to show that our "time" is right. Otherwise this is no better than the atheist who says, "Blood atonement is the sort of thing people accepted 2000 years ago."



So do the people who get nominated as Screwballs.



That's what the people nominated as Screwballs do too. They actively condemn those who they do not agree with.



So do we, though Jesus was not trying to get through to them. He was trying to publicly shame them before others.



I'm not sure what the regularity has to do with anything. Jesus probably had contests like these any time a Pharisee or other opponent like a Saducee came along. Socially he stood against them and they would see it as their duty to try to put Jesus down. Chances are he had confrontations all through the day while in Jerusalem. And the Pharisees came all the way to Galilee to try to humiliate him; those would happen less often, if only because it was less convenient for his opponents.



Actually, yes, he did. That was the whole point of these contests. It was just like a modern game of the dozens. The best verbal jouster won.



"Knew very well"??? The Pharisees? Are you serious? Do you honestly think Jesus went out for beers with these guys later? Are you sure you're not remaking Jesus in your own image and likeness here?

Also, in such contests, a cool head was a virtue. So anger and frustration was the last thing to be shown.



Not sure what "different faiths" etc has to do with anything here. If you're saying Jesus would have done different had some Roman or Confucian showed up, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.



I just gave it the old college try. Now let's see how you do dissecting it....

Thread title: Do you really think that Norm's questions are honest or are you trying to insult him?

[jpholding]

Thread title: Do you really think that Norm's questions are honest or are you trying to insult him?

I'm assuming they are for now. I prefer to start with an assumption of honesty.

[Xmansmommy]

To keep the Screwball thread from being cluttered, I'm starting a new one on this subject.

Let me ask JP, are you honestly seeking to better understand the reasoning why people, Christian and non Christian alike are against such behavior?

The same way they might compare themselves in other ways. It's up to you explain why things should be different.

I think Spiny brought up an excellent point. We don't know that he ridiculed any and all statements he disagreed with. To assume he did is quite presumtuous.

The same thing could be said to dismiss anything Jesus said or did, as stated. You need a better developed reason than that. You also need to show that our "time" is right. Otherwise this is no better than the atheist who says, "Blood atonement is the sort of thing people accepted 2000 years ago."



So do the people who get nominated as Screwballs.



That's what the people nominated as Screwballs do too. They actively condemn those who they do not agree with.



So do we, though Jesus was not trying to get through to them. He was trying to publicly shame them before others.



I'm not sure what the regularity has to do with anything. Jesus probably had contests like these any time a Pharisee or other opponent like a Saducee came along. Socially he stood against them and they would see it as their duty to try to put Jesus down. Chances are he had confrontations all through the day while in Jerusalem. And the Pharisees came all the way to Galilee to try to humiliate him; those would happen less often, if only because it was less convenient for his opponents.

Jesus probably had contests like this? Where do you get that impression?

Actually, yes, he did. That was the whole point of these contests. It was just like a modern game of the dozens. The best verbal jouster won.



"Knew very well"??? The Pharisees? Are you serious? Do you honestly think Jesus went out for beers with these guys later? Are you sure you're not remaking Jesus in your own image and likeness here?

The gospels said he was able to perceive the intricate parts of people's hearts and minds. Do you have that ability?

Also, in such contests, a cool head was a virtue. So anger and frustration was the last thing to be shown.



Not sure what "different faiths" etc has to do with anything here. If you're saying Jesus would have done different had some Roman or Confucian showed up, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.

I think perhaps his point is that we don't see Jesus insulting your every day non believer. Those he called names of were those that professed to be believers. Do you have any examples of Jesus ridiculing atheists, agnostics, those he disagreed with whom were true believers? He spoke out against hypocrites and legalists who weren't showing love in their hearts. That's a far cry from just anyone and everyone don't you think?

I just gave it the old college try. Now let's see how you do dissecting it....

I'm wondering JP, do you ever respond to anyone without some form of sarcasm, ridicule or mocking? If so, how often? I think that's part of the problem people have with your style.

I've tried to talk with you about this once before and you weren't willing to try to see things from any other viewpoint than defending your actions. You're entitled to do that and you're entitled to ridicule, mock, belittle, etc. but to be honest, the only people who are going to pat you on your back are those that are just like you. Speaks volumes about being a light to the world doesn't it?

[Xmansmommy]

I'm assuming they are for now. I prefer to start with an assumption of honesty.

The "for now" part indicates that you don't really. You have an expectation that they might change. Why?

[SpinyNorman]

To keep the Screwball thread from being cluttered, I'm starting a new one on this subject.

An excellent idea, thank you.

The same way they might compare themselves in other ways. It's up to you explain why things should be different.

Jesus is God. He was coming from the absolute highest ground one can come from. I would say that is a huge difference. Even Paul, while not God, was coming from a perspective much higher than ours.

The same thing could be said to dismiss anything Jesus said or did, as stated. You need a better developed reason than that. You also need to show that our "time" is right. Otherwise this is no better than the atheist who says, "Blood atonement is the sort of thing people accepted 2000 years ago."

I see that and I agree with you. But would it be fair to say that the weay we speak changes over time?

So do the people who get nominated as Screwballs.

Isn't there a huge difference between the Pharisees, who were the biblical experts of the day, and the athiests and agoostics here? I think there is, which is why I think they should be handled differently.

That's what the people nominated as Screwballs do too. They actively condemn those who they do not agree with.

Granted.

So do we, though Jesus was not trying to get through to them. He was trying to publicly shame them before others.

Yes but Jesus is God. I would say that is completely within his right. You and I? Different story.

I'm not sure what the regularity has to do with anything. Jesus probably had contests like these any time a Pharisee or other opponent like a Saducee came along. Socially he stood against them and they would see it as their duty to try to put Jesus down. Chances are he had confrontations all through the day while in Jerusalem. And the Pharisees came all the way to Galilee to try to humiliate him; those would happen less often, if only because it was less convenient for his opponents.

But did Jesus actively seek them out to shame them? Od did they pursies him? The Screwballs have always read to me like a bunch of christian buddies sitting around in their Barcaloungers mocking people they should be reaching out to.

Actually, yes, he did. That was the whole point of these contests. It was just like a modern game of the dozens. The best verbal jouster won.

I will readily confess to not knowing much about this. Can you point me to some places I could read about it?

"Knew very well"??? The Pharisees? Are you serious? Do you honestly think Jesus went out for beers with these guys later? Are you sure you're not remaking Jesus in your own image and likeness here?

Come on JP, that is not what I meant. I meant he knew them as he knew everyone.

Also, in such contests, a cool head was a virtue. So anger and frustration was the last thing to be shown.

Again...I need to read more.

Not sure what "different faiths" etc has to do with anything here. If you're saying Jesus would have done different had some Roman or Confucian showed up, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.

To be clearer, I guess I am wondering if, in our time and culture, if this approach pushes more people out than it brings in.

I just gave it the old college try. Now let's see how you do dissecting it....

Again, I appreciate the opportunity. I really want to understand this, because, as I said above, I think it hurts more than helps.

[SpinyNorman]

Thread title: Do you really think that Norm's questions are honest or are you trying to insult him?

If there is something you feel you need to say to me Kelp, go right ahead.

[Darth Executor]

An excellent idea, thank you.




Jesus is God. He was coming from the absolute highest ground one can come from. I would say that is a huge difference. Even Paul, while not God, was coming from a perspective much higher than ours.





I see that and I agree with you. But would it be fair to say that the weay we speak changes over time?




Isn't there a huge difference between the Pharisees, who were the biblical experts of the day, and the athiests and agoostics here? I think there is, which is why I think they should be handled differently.




Granted.




Yes but Jesus is God. I would say that is completely within his right. You and I? Different story.





But did Jesus actively seek them out to shame them? Od did they pursies him? The Screwballs have always read to me like a bunch of christian buddies sitting around in their Barcaloungers mocking people they should be reaching out to.




I will readily confess to not knowing much about this. Can you point me to some places I could read about it?




Come on JP, that is not what I meant. I meant he knew them as he knew everyone.



Again...I need to read more.




To be clearer, I guess I am wondering if, in our time and culture, if this approach pushes more people out than it brings in.




Again, I appreciate the opportunity. I really want to understand this, because, as I said above, I think it hurts more than helps.

I don't even know how to begin to explain how frustrating I find this post.

[SpinyNorman]

I don't even know how to begin to explain how frustrating I find this post.

Why?

[jpholding]

Let me ask JP, are you honestly seeking to better understand the reasoning why people, Christian and non Christian alike are against such behavior?

I rather think I already do. The reasoning isn't that complex.

I think Spiny brought up an excellent point. We don't know that he ridiculed any and all statements he disagreed with. To assume he did is quite presumtuous.

Arguing from non-information isn't going to advance anyone's case. We have the data to work with. That's it.

Jesus probably had contests like this? Where do you get that impression?

Um, the Gospels are full of them. Matthew 23 is a classic example. It's a typical battle of wits (challenge-riposte).

The gospels said he was able to perceive the intricate parts of people's hearts and minds. Do you have that ability?

I'm not seeing how this responds to what I said. In any event this leads back to the problem of "knowing hearts and minds" being a criteria, which goes out the window with Paul and John. In addition, it neglects the fact that it is quite easy to perceive the heart and mind of a person from repeated or quality instances of speech. Out of the overflow of the heart the heart speaks, correct?

Unless you grasp this, the only answer will ultimately be self-contradictory.

I think perhaps his point is that we don't see Jesus insulting your every day non believer.

"Every day" meaning what? The average peasant was too busy to engage in discussion. The age of leisure has afforded all the chance to become Pharisees, so to speak.

Those he called names of were those that professed to be believers. Do you have any examples of Jesus ridiculing atheists, agnostics, those he disagreed with whom were true believers? He spoke out against hypocrites and legalists who weren't showing love in their hearts.

In arguing this you are merely creating a category distinction out of nothing. There is nothing that limited riposte to "those who professed to be believers". Nor can you use this convenience since there were no atheists or agnostics in first century Palestine. You may as well argue that since he didn't insult any Islamic dictators, it is wrong to mock Saddam Hussein.

That said, his calling Peter "Satan" is a pretty strong insult.

That's a far cry from just anyone and everyone don't you think?

I think you know "just anyone and everyone" is not the category at hand. The emotional rhetoric will not serve any purpose.

I'm wondering JP, do you ever respond to anyone without some form of sarcasm, ridicule or mocking?

Do you make it a habit to read sarcasm where it isn't found?

but to be honest, the only people who are going to pat you on your back are those that are just like you.

That can be turned around just as readily, can't it?

Speaks volumes about being a light to the world doesn't it?

You might also consider the metaphor of salt. Salt was an irritant.

The "for now" part indicates that you don't really.

That's more than a little overstated. "For now" is a temporal indicator allowing that things MIGHT change once evidence is presented and does not reflect any sort of expectation. If it does, I'd like to hear an explanation of how.

[Darth Executor]

Why?

An ironic question, considering my statement.

[SpinyNorman]

An ironic question, considering my statement.

OK....I asked a simple question.

The choice is yours to answer or not.

[jpholding]

The same way they might compare themselves in other ways. It's up to you explain why things should be different.

Jesus is God. He was coming from the absolute highest ground one can come from. I would say that is a huge difference. Even Paul, while not God, was coming from a perspective much higher than ours.

All right. So let me ask you a question or so.

Do you come from a higher perspective yourself that enables you to judge the appropriateness of when to use riposte?

Can you explain your method for deciding who has a "higher perspective"? Or is it something only a limited few have? If so, how do they get it, and who else has (had?) it?

How does this also not enable one to say that unlike Jesus or Paul, we are incapable of obeying the Golden Rule, going to heaven, etc?

Doesn't this position open Jesus and Paul to a charge of hypocrisy?

But would it be fair to say that the weay we speak changes over time?

Yes. However if that is the criteria then it must be applied fairly and reasoned out for each case.

Isn't there a huge difference between the Pharisees, who were the biblical experts of the day, and the athiests and agoostics here?

As far as I can tell, you're saying here that someone who claims to be a "Biblical expert" is free game, while atheists and agnostics here are not. If so, two problems:

1) The atheists and agnostics here in many cases DO claim to be experts, inasmuch as they present themselves as authoritiative to speak to their issues, including above real experts (eg, Biblical scholars). Modern "democracy" and individualism has turned everyone into an expert (see "Wikipedia") in their own minds.

2) There's no evidence that riposte was limited to "experts". This has the bearing of another artificially created criteria, which is no more supportable than, "The Pharisees wore red shoes."

Yes but Jesus is God. I would say that is completely within his right. You and I? Different story.

Reference back to above re "higher understanding".

But did Jesus actively seek them out to shame them? Od did they pursies him?

Jesus put himself in public places and taught publicly challenging the views of the Pharisees and ruling powers. This was an open challenge to their authority that invited rebuttal. So arguably, yes, he sought them out by stepping into their territory. And of course they did pursue him too.

I don't know that anyone here actively looks for Screwball material. It seems to me that it is simply reported as it is found. I certainly don't make a special trip anywhere for it.

The Screwballs have always read to me like a bunch of christian buddies sitting around in their Barcaloungers mocking people they should be reaching out to.

People like jimbo?

I will readily confess to not knowing much about this. Can you point me to some places I could read about it?

The article I co-wrote at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html is a start. I checked and found http://www.yale.edu/adhoc/etexts/honans.htm which will give you a larger picture of the background.

Come on JP, that is not what I meant. I meant he knew them as he knew everyone.

I'm not sure what to make of that either. I think I need a larger explanation.

To be clearer, I guess I am wondering if, in our time and culture, if this approach pushes more people out than it brings in.

If I had to gauge results that I know, I'd have to say it helps more people than it hurts, and those it hurts are people out to hurt others. I also do not buy a claim from someone like jimbo that it hurts them.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity. I really want to understand this, because, as I said above, I think it hurts more than helps.

As a note for those wondering....I am more convinced now that your questions are honest.

I'll just be around another 20 minutes or so.

[jpholding]

I'll be back tomorrow, but I just wanted to say that I'm very hurt by Norm's avatar which is an insult to the Dallas Cowboys.





































Actually, that's not true. I don't like the Cowboys and wish they'd go 0-16 every year.

Good night.

[Xmansmommy]

I rather think I already do. The reasoning isn't that complex.

And what are your thoughts about Christians finding it offensive and unnecessary as a regular practice?

Arguing from non-information isn't going to advance anyone's case. We have the data to work with. That's it.

Which data?

Um, the Gospels are full of them. Matthew 23 is a classic example. It's a typical battle of wits (challenge-riposte).

Full of them? Other examples please?

I'm not seeing how this responds to what I said. In any event this leads back to the problem of "knowing hearts and minds" being a criteria, which goes out the window with Paul and John. In addition, it neglects the fact that it is quite easy to perceive the heart and mind of a person from repeated or quality instances of speech. Out of the overflow of the heart the heart speaks, correct?

Unless you grasp this, the only answer will ultimately be self-contradictory.

If you draw out people's obnoxiousness, rudeness and ridiculing behavior because you pride yourself in it, all you've done is shown how obnoxious, rude and ridiculing you and they can be. If that's the legacy you choose to leave on the world, go for it. Somehow I doubt that was what Jesus was advocating when he said to love pray for and bless your enemies.

"Every day" meaning what? The average peasant was too busy to engage in discussion. The age of leisure has afforded all the chance to become Pharisees, so to speak.

I think you made my point for me here though. The Pharisees and Saducees were so called believers. They had faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they just had some ideals about things that weren't true and tried to make everyone adhere to them. That's quite a bit different than what you do isn't it?

In arguing this you are merely creating a category distinction out of nothing. There is nothing that limited riposte to "those who professed to be believers". Nor can you use this convenience since there were no atheists or agnostics in first century Palestine. You may as well argue that since he didn't insult any Islamic dictators, it is wrong to mock Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps there were no atheists, agnostics or whatever. I wasn't there so I don't know. Neither do you.

That said, his calling Peter "Satan" is a pretty strong insult.

Well, I'm sure Peter was a believer for one. And for two, Peter was acting in accordance with an adversary of God. That's exactly what Jesus was addressing, a believer who was acting like an unbeliever.

I think you know "just anyone and everyone" is not the category at hand. The emotional rhetoric will not serve any purpose.

Isn't it your MO, JPH? Isn't it what you do and do very well? To whom do you interact with differently? What are your criteria for how you interact with people? Do you use discernment? Do you reach out to a person where they are and perhaps help them see their inconsistencies/errors without vitriol?

Do you make it a habit to read sarcasm where it isn't found?

You are joking right?

That can be turned around just as readily, can't it?

Absolutely.

You might also consider the metaphor of salt. Salt was an irritant.

Of course, we can defend it with statements such as this. G'head.

That's more than a little overstated. "For now" is a temporal indicator allowing that things MIGHT change once evidence is presented and does not reflect any sort of expectation. If it does, I'd like to hear an explanation of how.

Perhaps. I apologize for assuming.

I honestly am not trying to belittle you or demean you in any way. I truthfully would like to see a little more gentleness from you but that can only happen if you choose to. My intentions are always to encourage us all as Christians to live the principles we say we believe. Nothing more.

2 Tim 2:24-26

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.