Norm's Honest Questions About Screwballs

[Krusader]

really. sheesh Jesus was pretty good at dishing it out to the pharisees. He didn't call em stupid n00bs, he called them a den of vipers, whitewashed tombs, children of the devil, etc.

Maybe you just need to use more sophisticated ANE insults from now on JPH. Or at least Elizabethan. Shakespeare was pretty good at it too.

As in:

"Thou art a n00beth! Wherefore art thy brains, Jimmy? In thine hindquarters being pummeled by thine saddle as thou rideth the ass of ignorance?"

However, when Jesus used these words, he was speaking to His enemies. When Christians use insults with one another, can they justify it by pointing to the incidents recorded in Scripture of the Lord rebuking His enemies? I don't think so.

[Mountain Man]

really. sheesh Jesus was pretty good at dishing it out to the pharisees. He didn't call em stupid n00bs, he called them a den of vipers, whitewashed tombs, children of the devil, etc.

I think my favorite, simply because of its subtly, is when he challenged the pharisees "Have you not read...?" He was basically stating that the legal experts of the day were unfamiliar with their own laws!

[Mountain Man]

However, when Jesus used these words, he was speaking to His enemies. When Christians use insults with one another, can they justify it by pointing to the incidents recorded in Scripture of the Lord rebuking His enemies? I don't think so.

Apparently Peter was Jesus' enemy.

[{Tim}]

really. sheesh Jesus was pretty good at dishing it out to the pharisees. He didn't call em stupid n00bs, he called them a den of vipers, whitewashed tombs, children of the devil, etc.

Maybe you just need to use more sophisticated ANE insults from now on JPH. Or at least Elizabethan. Shakespeare was pretty good at it too.

As in:

"Thou art a n00beth! Wherefore art thy brains, Jimmy? In thine hindquarters being pummeled by thine saddle as thou rideth the ass of ignorance?"

I *so* want to see that.

[DawnBat]

I think I pointed out that such a tactic will often backfire in a society that is so obsessed with trying not to hurt someone's feelings.

Straw man. First, there is no obsession in this society with not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. Watch TV for a half hour and you will see all manner of insulting, swiftboating, ridicule and abuse. American society, whether or not deserved, is considered by much of the world as one of THE most crass, impolite, in-your-face societies on the planet.

Because television = reality.

I admit I have never lived out in The Real World^TM. I'm an ivory tower sort, and content to stay there. However, I do admit that perhaps it is not American society that is obsessed with walking on eggshells, but mainline Evangelical Christian society. When I was in Bible school, the main thrust of things was that we were never to be judgemental or critical. Now that I am in a secular school, the Christians (who are all over the place) keep their traps shut, while the non-Christians constantly vent about how insulting and abusive and judgemental we are.

Mine is a sit-there-and-take-it-if-you-are-a-Christian culture. But I forget that I don't live out on the street.

Second, my criticism is not a call to stop hurting people's feelings. It's simply pointing out the difference between rational discourse and superficial juvenile baiting.

I didn't say it was. Here it is again:

I think I pointed out that such a tactic will often backfire in a society that is so obsessed with trying not to hurt someone's feelings.

You said that people were congratulating you for your stance. I responded with the thought that modern western society would naturally side with the Nice. I have conceded that my grasp on modern western society may be a more of a fingerhold than a grasp per se, but there it is.

Think of the most persuasive and effective arguers in history. Lincoln, Gandhi, Reagan, whoever you admire most.

I suck at history. I'm an English major. So, that means I'm stuck with Hamlet, who was fond of concealing insults in meaningless gibberish.

Did any of them worry about hurting their enemy's feelings? No. They made no effort to conceal their disdain for their enemies, or to mask their criticism about what those enemies did or how they did it. What they did not do was hurl inane, abusive epithets at them. You never heard Lincoln say, for example: "My fellow Americans, General Lee is a stupid putz and a whining idiot."

Was General Lee a stupid putz and a whining idiot? I know that if you look at JP's stuff, he is quite complimentary towards two or three skeptics with whom he heartily disagrees. So he isn't (what was your word?) infantile towards everyone he opposes.

So why does he mock the one and praise the other?

The Tektonics crowd would have you believe that they are ridiculing people in an effort to "save soul's". What a joke. Anyone with any sense knows that they are just having a monthly insult party for their own infantile edification.

Sigh... Okay. Fine. I have no sense. Explain to me why it is infantile, rather than useful to soul-saving. That is the heart of this matter, right?

As far as I can see, the purpose of this thread is to determine whether the "monthly insult party" is appropriate. So far, while some of my assumptions have been rightly questioned, I have yet to see an actual argument from you to show that it is or is not appropriate. You just assume that anyone can see it is.

I say a bunch of stuff about how people are going to hell, and their momentary discomfort is trivial compared to eternal destiny, blah, blah...

So is it your understanding that in order to save someone from hell you will be forced to make insulting remarks to them? That's nonsense.

You assume and you oversimplify.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Suppose you have a flock of impressionable young believers. Flock A. Now suppose you have a loudmouthed agressive apologist for some soul-damning heresy. Wolf B.

Now suppose Wolf B is really quite silly and uneducated, but Flock A is even more uneducated. Some of A will go on to question their beliefs and then eventually accept them as valid. Some of A will hold desperately to their beliefs through blind faith. We will call this group of faithful A1, and the ones who are led astray A2.

Now the question before Apologist C is how to move more people from A2 into A1.

A polite, deferential debate might do the trick. However, perhaps B realizes that much of A2 cannot tell the difference between the high-faultin' arguments of the two groups. So he acts disdainful of C at all times, so that those who don't get it will think that he has the upper hand.

Perhaps it is possible that if C mocks B, then more of A2 will join A1. It is also possible that B will reconsider. But it is not likely.

Pointing out the silliness of the silly is not always for the silly's benefit. It can be as much for the benefit of the potentially silly.

And, as I keep saying, that is the question.

Please remember that we are not talking about situations where people are offended when you criticize their beliefs. That happens. We criticize each other's beliefs here all the time, and no one is complaining about that. We're talking about the Screwball thread, where a candidate is chosen each month to be ridiculed. That's what you're here to defend, Dawnbat.

What I am trying to do, apparantly unsuccessfully, is to tease out an argument as to whether it is appropriate or not, and why. All I'm getting, though, is a bunch of value-statements with no accompanying data.

I'll repeat a selection from the above quote for emphasis:

We're talking about the Screwball thread, where a candidate is chosen each month to be ridiculed. That's what you're here to defend, Dawnbat.

Is it right? Is it wrong? And why? Stop assuming and argue already.

And stop assuming I am here to defend it. I am here because where the line should be drawn is of great personal interest to me. I am not here to defend either side. I am here because I want to know an answer. There was some talk above about the meaning of 1st Peter 3:15&16 that I found extremely edifying, for instance.

JPH isn't nice.

True. But neither was Jesus, from what I'm told.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you trying to say that Christians shouldn't act like Jesus?

Maybe sometimes nice is appropriate, and maybe he goes over the line. But the fact is that in modern Western culture, if you are willing to punch someone in the face to keep them from sticking their head under a steamroller, then you will be attacked, and the people you try to rescue will be congratulated for holding up under such assault.

That's just false. Part of the strawman argument.

Ever see The Incredibles?

Maybe the defining factor isn't concern for feelings, but rather autonomy gone wild. Ask a random Japanese guy off the streets what's wrong with Americans, and he won't say that we are crude. He'll say we are selfish.

We want the right to have things our way. We will support other people's destructive behavior in order to support this right.

Do you honestly believe that the Screwball of the month thread is a valid example of "challenge/riposte"?

No. A valid example would be an exchange between the two groups. The Screwball thread is more along the lines of laughing at something the parties involved find ridiculous. It's like pointing out someone you think is just silly, and saying something like: "Do you honestly believe that the Screwball of the month thread is a valid example of "challenge/riposte"? "

Now we're left to ponder whether the TWEB Screwball of the Month thread has the "merit to transcend culture".

Yes. Exactly. That is the point of this thread, unless I am mistaken. Now, give me an argument to show why it does or doesn't.

waiting...

Excuse me, I have to stop typing now. This is too funny.

Oh. Darn. Well, I was hoping.

Have fun at your little insult party over the insult party.

[DawnBat]

I would like to point out, for the record, that Straw Man fallacies are attacking arguments that your opponent didn't make. So, if someone would kindly tell me why my possibly ignorant rant about culture is a Strawman, I would be grateful.

Being wrong doesn't make it a Strawman, does it?

[Zeluvia]

Logically, the enormous weight of eternity means that I should be infinitely more concerned about whether a person gets to spend eternity in joy or torment, than about how they feel right now. A little sadness or anger is a small price for a lot of happiness, and a little fun is a horrible price for eternal anguish.

I just want a few things clarified, that relate to some other threads, and I saw your post on the Dean's list, and it bothered me, but I am trying to figure out why.

So, you believe if someone dies without accepting Jesus Christ, they will spend eternity in anguish?

Yes/No

Do you believe that to save someone's soul, their life might even be forfeit? That a living, breathing human being is not as important as his/her eternal soul? Would physical pain and suffering in this world be justified if it caused a person to recant, repent, accept Christ, and save his/her soul?

Yes/No

Do you think being polite is being nice?

Yes/No

Do you think showing respect for other people is being nice?

Yes/No

In school, did you ever know a bully? It seems bullying in schools is on the rise, what do you think causes children to bully other children, and why do some children get picked out to be bullied?

[DawnBat]

I just want a few things clarified, that relate to some other threads, and I saw your post on the Dean's list, and it bothered me, but I am trying to figure out why.

I don't know. I was tired, emotional, honest, probably misinformed. It was a mess.

So, you believe if someone dies without accepting Jesus Christ, they will spend eternity in anguish?

Yes/No

Qualified yes. Emotional anguish rather than physical. Shame for their bad decision. Which can be relatively bearable, or worse than any physical punishment, depending on how far they went.

Do you believe that to save someone's soul, their life might even be forfeit? That a living, breathing human being is not as important as his/her eternal soul? Would physical pain and suffering in this world be justified if it caused a person to recant, repent, accept Christ, and save his/her soul?

Yes/No

Yay! I get to be a stereotypical inquisitor now.

I would like to point out that the doctrine of physical ressurection means that the "eternal soul" you are talking about is, as far as I know, a "living, breathing human being."

So:

"Do you believe that a living, breathing human being is not as important as his/her living, breathing self in eternity?"

IOW, I'm being asked if I believe that a person is not as important as himself or herself.

What's with the Yes/No thing?

Do you think being polite is being nice?

Yes/No

Being polite is always nice. But it is also usually the best way to go.

Do you think showing respect for other people is being nice?

Yes/No

No. I think respect is deeper than being nice, and that it sometimes involves being nice, and sometimes doesn't.

In school, did you ever know a bully? It seems bullying in schools is on the rise, what do you think causes children to bully other children, and why do some children get picked out to be bullied?

Huh? In school I was the class wimp. There was a girl in third grade who literally picked me up and threw me.

Can we take this to another thread? I'm pretty much done with this one. Some middle posts I missed on my first read-through have granted closure, and the child psychology thing seems to be veering wayy off topic.

[Zeluvia]

I don't know. I was tired, emotional, honest, probably misinformed. It was a mess.


Qualified yes. Emotional anguish rather than physical. Shame for their bad decision. Which can be relatively bearable, or worse than any physical punishment, depending on how far they went.



Yay! I get to be a stereotypical inquisitor now.

I would like to point out that the doctrine of physical ressurection means that the "eternal soul" you are talking about is, as far as I know, a "living, breathing human being."

So:

"Do you believe that a living, breathing human being is not as important as his/her living, breathing self in eternity?"

IOW, I'm being asked if I believe that a person is not as important as himself or herself.

What's with the Yes/No thing?



Being polite is always nice. But it is also usually the best way to go.



No. I think respect is deeper than being nice, and that it sometimes involves being nice, and sometimes doesn't.



Huh? In school I was the class wimp. There was a girl in third grade who literally picked me up and threw me.

Can we take this to another thread? I'm pretty much done with this one. Some middle posts I missed on my first read-through have granted closure, and the child psychology thing seems to be veering wayy off topic.

Sure, we can move it, I want to get to the bottom of this being nice idea...and where it fits in my own thinking about the way people treat each other and why.

I don't think people are inherently mean, or rude, except on the internet = )

Even JP Holding would likely not call someone a screwball to their face.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Even JP Holding would likely not call someone a screwball to their face.

That is strange you would think that. He must certainly would. As would I. As did Norman Geisler to me (for which I never got "insulted," I was like "way to go Norm, you got it in you")

[Dee Dee Warren]

Pointing out the silliness of the silly is not always for the silly's benefit. It can be as much for the benefit of the potentially silly.

And that very much indeed is the point. When JP gave Dennis Mckinnsey the trouncing he so richly deserved, I doubt Dennis got much benefit out of it, but I can tell you that I sure did, and I no longer see much of Dennis-spewage around.

[Krusader]

Apparently Peter was Jesus' enemy.

Did Jesus call Peter a Screwball? And, "get behind me Satan" was addressed to Satan (duh!), not Peter. Satan was tempting the Lord through Peter, and the Lord discerned this.

No, there's something not right about this whole thing.....but, apparently nobody here agrees, so go your merry way and laugh and carry one.

[jpholding]

This message is hidden because Crusader is on your ignore list.

Now she sounds much more intelligent.

Even JP Holding would likely not call someone a screwball to their face.

Dee Dee's right. I would, and have, in arenas of public discourse, just as this is.

[DawnBat]

Sure, we can move it, I want to get to the bottom of this being nice idea...and where it fits in my own thinking about the way people treat each other and why.

I don't think people are inherently mean, or rude, except on the internet = )

Even JP Holding would likely not call someone a screwball to their face.

I'm up for that. I'm also not entirely sure about this whole nice thing and how it fits togethor. I have a very good idea of what I was talking about on the Dean's List post, but I'd like to try and define things better.

Problem is, I don't know where to move it.

Mods? Where should I start a dialogue between a Christian and an Atheist on the definition of "Nice", and how it compares to Biblical ethics?

[Sparko]

That is strange you would think that. He must certainly would. As would I. As did Norman Geisler to me (for which I never got "insulted," I was like "way to go Norm, you got it in you")

I gotta hear this story. PM me.