Norm's Honest Questions About Screwballs

[SpinyNorman]

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?

Well that is just my point. No, I do not have this higher perspective. I don't think any of us do. That is why I would be so hesitant to loose my tongue on others, because I do NOT have that knowledge.

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?

I don't think it would. Again, do we agree that Jesus, as God, knows all there is to know? If you know everything, then you know when to use this tomn and when not to. That wouldn't apply to following the Golden Rule or going to heaven because it is a different situation. I CAN follow the Golden Rule if I choose to. I CANNOT posess all knowledge, no matter how much I might try.

As for Paul, he obviously did not have this foreknowledge that Jesus had. His wish that the Galatians emasculate themselves was probably what they needed to hear. But again, here in 2007, I don't feel comfortable letting loose on someone knowing my words could be further driving a wedge between that person or myself. To say nothing of the people who are watching in the shadows.

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

Could you explain what you mean in a bit more detail?

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.

Anyone can CLAIM to be an expert right? Does that make it so? I agree with you that many run to sites like Wikipedia and take it as gospel. But that does not make them experts. The Pharisees WERE experts. They had no excuse. I don't see where there is really a comparison between the Pharisees of Jesus day and someone who considers himself an expert on the bible simply because he read some articles on Wikipedia.

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."

But everytime Jesus did it, it was to the experts right? If I am wrong, please tell me where.

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.

Granted I see that. But there are some here I am sure who search desperately for the perfect Screwball comment not to help said screwball, but solely to have their pick chosen and ridicule the individual. And therein lies the danger.

People like jimbo?

Are you suggesting we shouldn't reach out to people like Jimbo?

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.

Thanks!

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

As God he knew everything about them.

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.

And this is ground I am not sure how to proceed on, because I know of non christians it DOES bother. I realize there are some who use it as an excuse. But I also know there are those who do not. It is the ones who do not I worry about.

I also do not buy a claim from someone like jimbo that it hurts them.

I am certainly inclined to agree woth you.....but can you REALLY know?

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

I certainly don't think of myself as a troll, so I appreciate that.

[SpinyNorman]

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.

LOL

That's for a friend of mine.

[Sparko]

I would like JP and Norm to weigh in on this....

I am not a stranger to sarcasm in my posts. And I do get insulting at times. Sometimes I feel it is deserved and other times I regret it. I have little tolerance for trolls and morons (or I should say people who act like morons) - I tend to return what they toss at me. If they are civil, so am I, if they get into attack mode or insulting then so do I. Not exactly turn the other cheek behavior...

Anyway...

I see both Spiny and JP's points. I do see Jesus insulting and mocking the pharisees when they try to trip him up or attack him. But I also read where Peter says:

1 Peter 3:14-16 (New International Version)
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

How do we as Christians reconcile both of these conflicting ideas? Insulting others is not gentle or respectful even when they do it first.

It really bothers me and I pray about it all the time.

[Goonerman]

Whether you think JPH is appropriate or not in his retorts to his debating opponents, I would say that it is appropriate to treat both the experts who ought to know better and the idiots who think they are experts sternly if they happen to be arrogant and obnoxious, and if such sarcastic rhetoric is to be used, it should be done in a way that can only offend the pompous, making points which everyone else, including opponents, would find reasonable. It's all about balance. Plus, we are to be like Christ, and to be innocent as doves but wise as serpents.

Matthew 23 is the climax to a whole day's worth of debate between Jesus and His opponents. Note that His behaviour to them differed according to their attitude. This is the key I think, indeed, take John 4 and the Samaritan woman. Many Bible teachers I know have taken this as an example of how to evangelise, a master model from the Lord Himself. There are different ways of evangelising, from that conversation through to the intellectual material of Paul's speech to the Areopagus, through to Paul's stern denunciation of Elymas Bar-Jesus and blinding of him. Note Jesus' respect for the teacher of the law who asked Jesus what He thought the Greatest Commandment was. Jesus didn't just deal with the expert Pharisees in such stern tones, but also the Sadducees whom Jesus did NOT consider to be experts. "You know neither the Scriptures nor God's power... you are completely wrong!"

Also, there are actual jokes in Jesus' teaching, from His gentle tongue-in-cheek pun in Greek kunatos when talking about the puppies to the Syro-Phoenician Canaanite woman, where the two of them made up a witty two part proverb on the spot- note Jesus' clever little 'their puppies' as a guide to the punchline which she in faith provided, but Jesus deliberately makes an excruciating pun in the middle of Matthew 23 when He says that the Pharisees strain a gnat out of a drink but swallow a camel. Translate that back into Aramaic and the pun becomes clear. (1st century people loved the ones which made you groan.) I always get these two mixed up, but camel and gnat are almost identical, the Aramaic words being 'qalma' and 'qamla'. Rabbis liked to insult each other by mispronouncing names and words to change their meaning. The Talmud engages in some wacky insults of the disciples, for instance, where they play around with their names and OT verses. Isaiah kept mispronouncing the name of Tovel as Toval to change it from 'God is good' to 'Good for nothing'. Even the Devil does not escape. 'Beelzebub' means lord of dung, and is a spoof on the name of the Canaanite deity Baalzebub. A lot of it is part of the art of repartee and riposte which was a rhetorical feature in Judaism.

[Xmansmommy]

Sparko, I think the fact that someone struggles with it means that they shouldn't be doing it. Knowing and reconciling scripture is wonderful and we should all seek to do just that but we should never do something we feel is wrong or have regrets over, even if we see examples in scripture. Perhaps it's just that the Lord hasn't given clarity yet. You may find later when He does, that it was indeed sinful and your regrets will be even greater then. Loving people who aren't lovely isn't easy. Turning the other cheek isn't easy. But it's not impossible either. And it is worth it.

[Trout]

Sparko, I think the fact that someone struggles with it means that they shouldn't be doing it. Knowing and reconciling scripture is wonderful and we should all seek to do just that but we should never do something we feel is wrong or have regrets over, even if we see examples in scripture. Perhaps it's just that the Lord hasn't given clarity yet. You may find later when He does, that it was indeed sinful and your regrets will be even greater then. Loving people who aren't lovely isn't easy. Turning the other cheek isn't easy. But it's not impossible either. And it is worth it.

Feeling shouldn't trump scripture, Xmom.

[Xmansmommy]

Feeling shouldn't trump scripture, Xmom.

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, Trout. I was talking about those things we aren't clear about in scripture like Sparko is talking about. When we don't yet know how to reconcile them we shouldn't act. We should wait until it is clearer before we act.

[SpinyNorman]

I would like JP and Norm to weigh in on this....

I am not a stranger to sarcasm in my posts. And I do get insulting at times. Sometimes I feel it is deserved and other times I regret it. I have little tolerance for trolls and morons (or I should say people who act like morons) - I tend to return what they toss at me. If they are civil, so am I, if they get into attack mode or insulting then so do I. Not exactly turn the other cheek behavior...

Anyway...

I see both Spiny and JP's points. I do see Jesus insulting and mocking the pharisees when they try to trip him up or attack him. But I also read where Peter says:

1 Peter 3:14-16 (New International Version)
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

How do we as Christians reconcile both of these conflicting ideas? Insulting others is not gentle or respectful even when they do it first.

It really bothers me and I pray about it all the time.

Hola mighty pirate of the Twebbian seas!!!!!!!! (The exclamation points are fro Teal)

Your concern is mine exactly. Where is the line?

I see that there is a time and place for the type of challenge-riposte JP is speaking of. And if it is between two people who clearly understnd it then I have no problem with it at all.

My concern is here in 2007, like we are, should this type of acerbic debate be practiced REGULARLY by Christians? I am not convinced it should be.

I appreciate JP taking me seriously and talking through this with me in a reaspectful manner.

I would rather err on the side of caution of NOT driving someone away with my attitude or my words. This is what I try to live by.

Do I always succeed? No. But I would like to think that when I screw up, I have the gumtion to tell the person I should not have said what I did and apologize.

I just think we need to be careful if we want to be taken seriously.

[Trout]

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, Trout. I was talking about those things we aren't clear about in scripture like Sparko is talking about. When we don't yet know how to reconcile them we shouldn't act. We should wait until it is clearer before we act.

OK, it appears as though you feel one way about riposte and JP feels another way about riposte, how can you tell him he's wrong?

[Xmansmommy]

OK, it appears as though you feel one way about riposte and JP feels another way about riposte, how can you tell him he's wrong?

I don't believe I have. I have told him that it doesn't do a great deal for bridging gaps between people and it's not the wisest way to go about loving people but he's more than welcome to do it. I believe I told him that also.

Why is it that you don't participate in that type of diatribe, Trout? Just curious.

[Trout]

I don't believe I have. I have told him that it doesn't do a great deal for bridging gaps between people and it's not the wisest way to go about loving people but he's more than welcome to do it. I believe I told him that also.

But you think it's wrong based upon how you feel, right? There seems to be scripture on either side of the aisle validating both ideas.

I mean, the Bible says, answer a fool according to his folly, and the Bible also says, don't answer a fool according to his folly.

I think there most certainly is a place for one-upsmanship in a public dialogue, I also believe there's a time when we should tone it down.

I think the Body of Christ is composed of people who have different callings, if I had to answer skeptics all day long like Holding does, I'd be looking for a tall building to jump off of. I'm thankful that there are those such as Holding, willing to give a defense in the most hostile of intellectual enviroments.

Why is it that you don't participate in that type of diatribe, Trout? Just curious.

Well, I hurl my share of insults, but mostly at my fellow Christians. And the "Gerbil".

[SpinyNorman]

I think the Body of Christ is composed of people who have different callings, if I had to answer skeptics all day long like Holding does, I'd be looking for a tall building to jump off of. I'm thankful that there are those such as Holding, willing to give a defense in the most hostile of intellectual enviroments.

I really think there might be something to that fish-face.

My concern is does it have to be all the time? How does one clarify the proper time, place, or situation.

[Trout]

I really think there might be something to that fish-face.

I'm wounded.

My concern is does it have to be all the time? How does one clarify the proper time, place, or situation.

I don't see it all the time, I think Holding has been pretty nice in this thread, don't you?

Maybe if you and I were to deal with skeptics in the sheer volume that Holding does, we'd develope a sense of when the questions weren't honest and we would answer accordingly?

[Xmansmommy]

But you think it's wrong based upon how you feel, right?

For me personally, it's wrong for the reasons I gave. It's not conducive to living peaceably with all men, it doesn't bridge gaps, nor does it help people feel loved. That's not based on emotions or feelings. Initially I think feelings can be an indication that something is wrong with our behaviors. Especially if we aren't sure about how to handle them or how to reconcile scripture on an issue. Let's not forget that the Holy Spirit would convict us as some here (myself included) have admitted, even long before we are taught truth biblically. And until God shows us how and when to engage with people even those who do it first, I think it's wise not to do it. That's my own personal opinion and I base that on personal experience.

There seems to be scripture on either side of the aisle validating both ideas.

Of course.

I mean, the Bible says, answer a fool according to his folly, and the Bible also says, don't answer a fool according to his folly.

Of course and I don't believe anyone here has suggested that it's never appropriate to be harsh. Provoking others to sin however, is not considered wise in my opinion.

I think there most certainly is a place for one-upsmanship in a public dialogue, I also believe there's a time when we should tone it down.

I coudn't agree more!

I think the Body of Christ is composed of people who have different callings, if I had to answer skeptics all day long like Holding does, I'd be looking for a tall building to jump off of. I'm thankful that there are those such as Holding, willing to give a defense in the most hostile of intellectual enviroments.

Holding chooses to you mean? That's his choice and if that's his calling that's great but we should expect that discernment is always used. How often do you see a softer, gentler approach? I don't want to single him out because it applies to many Christians I know.

Well, I hurl my share of insults, but mostly at my fellow Christians. And the "Gerbil".

Ok. Why mostly at your fellow Christians? Why not mostly at unbelievers?

[Trout]

For me personally, it's wrong for the reasons I gave.

Good for you, I wish you well in following your convictions, Xmom.

Holding chooses to you mean? That's his choice and if that's his calling that's great but we should expect that discernment is always used. How often do you see a softer, gentler approach? I don't want to single him out because it applies to many Christians I know.

There are many differing schools of thought when it comes to evangelism, to of the most common are Friendship evangelism (FE) and Confrontational evangelism. (CE)

As is obvious by definition, FE is the method that puts friendship first in the relationship, if we can become friends with someone, then perhaps we'll have the opportunity at some point to preach the Gospel, or perhaps our friends will enquire about why we are the way we are, offering us a launching pad to present Christ.

I think FE is a wonderful thing.

CE is more of an in-your-face approach to evangelism. CE's can be found preaching on street corners and handing out tracts, their message is REPENT, Christ wants to forgive your sin and make you right with Him. They are often looked upon as weirdos and unsophisticated Christians.

I think CE is wonderful.

I came to Christ through the words of a Christian willing to tell me that I was a filthy dirty sinner in need of forgiveness, CE brought me to the cross.

Apologetics isn't the same as evangelism in every sense, there are people who are sincerely seeking answers to tough questions about the Christian faith, and there are people seeking to destroy the faith held by Christians. The second group deserves our scorn, they are enemies of the cross and their arguments should be answered as such.

Those sincerely seeking answers should be answered gently and respectfully.

Perhaps some people need to get a good dose of shame from a JP Holding to knock them off their high-horse and perhaps there'll be an Xmom waiting to share the love of Christ with them?

Ok. Why mostly at your fellow Christians? Why not mostly at unbelievers?

I think most skeptics here at Tweb are my intellectual superiors, some of their criticisms of Christianity I can't comprehend, never mind ridicule.

I expect Christians not to take themselves too seriously, and be able to laugh at themselves and each other, it helps keep us humble.