Norm's Honest Questions About Screwballs

[SpinyNorman]

[QUOTE=TROUT:]I'm wounded.[QUOTE]

Oh come on...that was a compliment.

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

Absolutely.

And it's not about being nice. It's about being respectful.

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?

Yeah maybe...but I would still err on the side of caution. But that's me.

[Trout]

Yeah maybe...but I would still err on the side of caution. But that's me.

That's a good plan.

Maybe you and I aren't cut out for shouting matches with mean skeptics?

Aren't you glad there are Christians equipped to do so?

[SpinyNorman]

That's a good plan.

Maybe you and I aren't cut out for shouting matches with mean skeptics?

Aren't you glad there are Christians equipped to do so?

Still working on that one.

[Darth Executor]

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.

Yet Jesus did it anyway. The answer is simple. First, the language they used was "extremist". It was always/never, love/hate, no inbetweens. I don't think the always is an absolute always. Second, the advice was for people who asked you why you believe. When debating somebody trying to destroy Christianity it is not the same scenario.

[Darth Executor]

Sparko, I think the fact that someone struggles with it means that they shouldn't be doing it.

I agree with this, but it's where the agreement ends.

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.

I think making decisions based on feeling leads to disaster.

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.

What if you find out later that you were wrong, and when you stand before the throne of God He asks you why you allowed the sons of Satan to corrupt His children for the sake of being nice? If I had to pick between justifying being "rude" to guard God's kingdom and letting Satan have victory for the sake of being nice I'd pick the former hands down. The sword cuts both ways.

[familyof6]

Perhaps no one wants my opinion on this, but I just wanted to say something from a 'skeptic' point of view.

When I first joined tweb, not only had I never debated on a theology site before, I had never debated online at all. I made the mistake of crossing paths with JP early on. I didn't have any clue as to what had or hadn't already been discussed on the site. I posted a link to him of some bible contradictions. I don't remember his following post, but he basically laughed me off and said that the contradictions had already been dealt with in the past. Then, I ran across the screwball winners, and lo and behold, I was one of them for posting a list of biblical contradictions.

Now that I have been here longer, I realize how futile that was. I also avoid conversing with JP in any thread. In fact, I don't believe we've said anything to each other since then. But I do know this...I almost left this site and never came back. I began to wonder if this was yet another theological website that claims to be welcoming to discussion from any religious perspective; when in reality it was not. Instead of leaving altogether, I lurked threads for a time and jumped back in when I felt more comfortable.

I am not trying to be dramatic...I don't need a tissue or a violin. It wasn't the end of my world that I was insulted straight away by JP at Tweb. However, it did make me think twice about returning at all. We may have had people who had this same experience and didn't have the gumption or energy to ever continue with Tweb.

I tend to be sarcastic at times, I've said some dumb things here and there, and I'm not perfect. But I do think that this 'screwball' practice could be very well turning some people off to this website altogether. That's just my personal opinion...

Heather

PS...As a side note: I actually heard about Tweb through an atheist forum. I left that forum because I didn't like the tone they took with religious people. I know that there are athiests who engage in mocking and belittling reilgious people, but I am not one of them. I don't think it's right coming from either camp.

[SpinyNorman]

Yet Jesus did it anyway. The answer is simple. First, the language they used was "extremist". It was always/never, love/hate, no inbetweens. I don't think the always is an absolute always. Second, the advice was for people who asked you why you believe. When debating somebody trying to destroy Christianity it is not the same scenario.

But Darth.....why would the verse then have to go on and say " so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

If they were simply asking you why you believe, why the warning to let them be ashamed of their slander. That sounds to me like it is talking about the people trying to "destroy" christianity.

[Mountain Man]

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.

I think the difference is that challenge-riposte does not involve malicious slander. In fact, someone who would stoop to that level will have effectively lost the debate. In my opinion, the passage above is not referring to challenge-riposte but something else entirely. As a parallel to the above, Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). "Do not resist an evil person" basically means don't answer evil with evil.

So to bring this home, if someone says, "Christians are stupid because they put their trust in a Bible that condones slavery," then let them have it (a response that says, "You're pretty ignorant of ANE culture, aren't you? Go study some history books and get back to us, you moron," would not be malicious or slanderous and could be said with a clear conscience). If they say, "I think all Christians should be lined up and shot because they're a danger to themselves and society" then you turn the other cheek and walk away.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I agree with you Darth. The problem with giving those verses absolute guidelines in all situations is that it turns Jesus and the apostles grave sinners in that department (never mind all the OT examples) with the early church falling right behind them. It sits in judgment of the apostles. So like we do with many issues, one must reconcile the seeming discrepancy, and it isn't by using one to trump the other, unless one is going to say that harmonizing the text isn't a priority. For those who believe the Bible can contradict itself, they can do that. But not those who don't. The fact is that both Jesus and Paul and John said things that we moderns might consider positively barbaric and it is rather presumptous of us to sit in judgment of them.

So then the question is more aptly ask, how do we discern the difference. And there is a worthy question.

You got DJ who prides himself on being an apostate-maker, invites me into apostasy, delights in the apostasy of some other Christian on another forum and taunts Lil with that invitation.... in the Old Testament, actively promoting the apostasy of God's people was a capital offense. This is no light, let's just all get along matter.

I remember the days when I was struggling with faith issues. And while I may not be able to articulate it well as to why and how, JP's shaming of the apostate-makers made ALL the difference in the world to me, and cleared the fog of deception. I will never forget the delighted taunts of persons like DJ and the like who say things like, "I am going to rock your world" in their vociferous ravaging of the faith of another. No, I don't RESPECT that, and I don't think the Bible commands it either.

Those of you who want to condemn this, I would ask, why do you love me less? Why do I say it that way? Because my faith was rescued by these very same things you are condemning. And for everyone like me who is public like this, there are a hundred more who aren't.

I like how Dan Trotter quoted his wife when the hyperpreterists were cryng a river about how mean and unloving Dan was to their heresy. She said, "This isn't about any hyperpreterist that I don't love. It's about the believers that I do."

I find this generally a debate ruled by modern sentimentality, and I say, what's love (int the modern sense of sentimentality) have to do with it? Nothing. For sentimentality is not necessarily Biblical love.

I was a God-reviler myself at one time, and had plenty of sentimentalist Christians who did me NO favours by "respecting" my nonsense and giving fodder for my creaturely pride. All it took was some truly loving biting sarcasm from a truly loving pastor that made me see in an instant what a fool I was.

So you know what, you are entitled to your opinion (and I am using the "you" generically for I am speaking to no one in particular), but just realize, that I firmly believe that the sentimentality that is sometimes promoted would have "loved" me right to hell.

[SpinyNorman]

What if you find out later that you were wrong, and when you stand before the throne of God He asks you why you allowed the sons of Satan to corrupt His children for the sake of being nice? If I had to pick between justifying being "rude" to guard God's kingdom and letting Satan have victory for the sake of being nice I'd pick the former hands down. The sword cuts both ways.

What if YOU find out later that you were wrong, and when you stand before the throne of God he asks you why you allowed your pride and arrogance to push away people who needed to hear His message because you were worried about being to nice to them?

The sword does indeed cut both ways.

By the way, before you jump on me, I am not calling you prideful OR arrogent, simply saying that is how your tone comes off.

[SpinyNorman]

I think the difference is that challenge-riposte does not involve malicious slander. In fact, someone who would stoop to that level will have effectively lost the debate. In my opinion, the passage above is not referring to challenge-riposte but something else entirely. As a parallel to the above, Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). "Do not resist an evil person" basically means don't answer evil with evil.

So to bring this home, if someone says, "Christians are stupid because they put their trust in a Bible that condones slavery," then let them have it (a response that says, "You're pretty ignorant of ANE culture, aren't you? Go study some history books and get back to us, you moron," would not be malicious or slanderous and could be said with a clear conscience). If they say, "I think all Christians should be lined up and shot because they're a danger to themselves and society" then you turn the other cheek and walk away.

But what good does throwing in the YOU MORON do? Why not just leave it at "You're pretty ignorant of ANE culture, aren't you? Go study some history books and get back to us"?

Why do you have to toss in the insult?

[Darth Executor]

But Darth.....why would the verse then have to go on and say " so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

If they were simply asking you why you believe, why the warning to let them be ashamed of their slander. That sounds to me like it is talking about the people trying to "destroy" christianity.

What makes you think it's talking about the same set of people? Slanderers aren't asking you what you believe, they're telling everybody else what you "believe". As JP pointed out earlier, in that culture, doing good without expecting a reward was viewed with suspicion. So when somebody said something like "I'll get my reward in heaven" they'd likely be gossiped about and slandered. Occasionally, you might have someone who actually wanted to know why and asked.

[SpinyNorman]

I agree with you Darth. The problem with giving those verses absolute guidelines in all situations is that it turns Jesus and the apostles grave sinners in that department (never mind all the OT examples) with the early church falling right behind them. It sits in judgment of the apostles. So like we do with many issues, one must reconcile the seeming discrepancy, and it isn't by using one to trump the other, unless one is going to say that harmonizing the text isn't a priority. For those who believe the Bible can contradict itself, they can do that. But not those who don't. The fact is that both Jesus and Paul and John said things that we moderns might consider positively barbaric and it is rather presumptous of us to sit in judgment of them.

So then the question is more aptly ask, how do we discern the difference. And there is a worthy question.

You got DJ who prides himself on being an apostate-maker, invites me into apostasy, delights in the apostasy of some other Christian on another forum and taunts Lil with that invitation.... in the Old Testament, actively promoting the apostasy of God's people was a capital offense. This is no light, let's just all get along matter.

I remember the days when I was struggling with faith issues. And while I may not be able to articulate it well as to why and how, JP's shaming of the apostate-makers made ALL the difference in the world to me, and cleared the fog of deception. I will never forget the delighted taunts of persons like DJ and the like who say things like, "I am going to rock your world" in their vociferous ravaging of the faith of another. No, I don't RESPECT that, and I don't think the Bible commands it either.

Those of you who want to condemn this, I would ask, why do you love me less? Why do I say it that way? Because my faith was rescued by these very same things you are condemning. And for everyone like me who is public like this, there are a hundred more who aren't.

I like how Dan Trotter quoted his wife when the hyperpreterists were cryng a river about how mean and unloving Dan was to their heresy. She said, "This isn't about any hyperpreterist that I don't love. It's about the believers that I do."

I find this generally a debate ruled by modern sentimentality, and I say, what's love (int the modern sense of sentimentality) have to do with it? Nothing. For sentimentality is not necessarily Biblical love.

I was a God-reviler myself at one time, and had plenty of sentimentalist Christians who did me NO favours by "respecting" my nonsense and giving fodder for my creaturely pride. All it took was some truly loving biting sarcasm from a truly loving pastor that made me see in an instant what a fool I was.

So you know what, you are entitled to your opinion (and I am using the "you" generically for I am speaking to no one in particular), but just realize, that I firmly believe that the sentimentality that is sometimes promoted would have "loved" me right to hell.

I hear what you are saying DD.

But we are living in the modern age. Isn't this a consoderation to have in mind in a public forum when anyone at any stage of a spiritual journey can poke their head in and read what is going on?

[SpinyNorman]

What makes you think it's talking about the same set of people? Slanderers aren't asking you what you believe, they're telling everybody else what you "believe". As JP pointed out earlier, in that culture, doing good without expecting a reward was viewed with suspicion. So when somebody said something like "I'll get my reward in heaven" they'd likely be gossiped about and slandered. Occasionally, you might have someone who actually wanted to know why and asked.

So you are saying the verse takes a SUDDEN 180 degree leap in mid sentence??

I find that very hard to swallow.

[Mountain Man]

But Darth.....why would the verse then have to go on and say " so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

If they were simply asking you why you believe, why the warning to let them be ashamed of their slander. That sounds to me like it is talking about the people trying to "destroy" christianity.

It's talking about two different people: Those who ask why you have hope, and those who maliciously slander you.