Screen shot @ Geoffrey Kruse-Safford's blog What's Left in the Church
There is a bit of hilarity in this screen shot which I'll get to, but for now I'll just get to the point of the post.
Here's a couple of choice quotes from Geoff's post "Passive-Agressive [sic] Post-Modernist" [Warning... foul and disrespectful language ahead. I apologize for posting this, but it's necessary]
ELAshley, you're a whiny-ass titty-baby.
Mom2, when I want advice from someone who knows nothing, I'll be sure to look you up. Until then, leave my wife, and her ministry, and everything else that has to do with me, out of it. I might just release some more words from my hands, because my patience with comments like yours has disappeared. Your phony sanctimony, your pompous preaching about morality, your tired, nonsensical drivel about how much more learned and wise you are simply because you haven't died yet all make me want to vomit.
And THIS from a Christian. And not just ANY Christian, but one who is married to a pastor, no less. My! What a testimony this man has!!!
Well! LOL! The funniest part of all this (the ONLY funny part in this) is the "virtual tin cup" in the upper left corner of the screen shot! Sorry Geoff, but why would I give money to someone who can't even bridle his own tongue? Who bends over backward to mock and abuse those who refuse to accept your empty theology? Why would I give money to someone who shows no evidence in their speech of their Christian walk?
Rather than glory in your own self-righteous outrage, you need to repent. I sincerely hold no enmity toward you, and I will pray for you.
..::Note to any would-be commenters::..
I will absolutely delete any comment that denigrates Geoffrey. He'll think my post denigration enough, and I won't allow anyone to compound it.
42 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But then, others we both admire have been rude. Folk who went around saying, "You vipers! You brood of snakes! Blind guides! Fools! Woe to you rich!" And saying such to good respectable religious folk, to boot.
So, perhaps the rudeness is not out of place IF Geoffrey were correct in his assessment - would that be fair to say? And rude, dismissive comments from Mom2, Rev. Timothy, Neil and others (read Mike's America comments sometime if you want REAL rudeness) would not be out of place IF they were correct in their assessment towards those they disagree with?
I wonder if it were proposed that you and I, Neil, ER, Geoffrey, Mom2, Alan, Timothy, Daddio, etc, etc (even Mike) were all to agree to a truce - to a starting over fresh, taking comments under consideration, concerns under advisement, removing unnecessary rudeness, removing bans, etc - I wonder how many would be willing to do so?
Am I angry at Geoffrey's choice of words? Of Course! I've had to struggle with my own anger over this, and recognize my own failings... along the lines of Luke 18:13. I could dish out as good as I get, and then some, but I can't go down that road. Because the Spirit of God lives in me, I have to be mindful of His will... and yes, it's hard. It has not been easy for me to be as nice as I have about it. And even at what I've done in posting on Geoffrey's problem, I have to ask myself if I have sinned in anger.
That being said, Geoffrey has crossed a line I have no intention of toeing; for the language he used and his lack of personal control he should repent-- Apologize if he feels led to do so-- I don't require it --but repent certainly. ESPECIALLY considering his wife's ministry.
The quotes you posted were . . . uh . . . interesting (Way to bully Mom2, Geoffrey! What a man!).
Dan, I offer little truces all the time. Yes, people get hot sometimes, but if they'll just come back with a reasoned comment and avoid the personal attacks then all is forgiven.
I have only blacklisted 3 people and moderate the comments of a couple others. One was for ridiculous ad hominem attacks, one was for just being picky and annoying and the other was someone I just can't trust. All were given way more chances than they should have received. I just don't see why one should feel obligated to have extended pointless discussions with every stranger that comes along on the web.
I let all kinds of opinions in. I never deleted a comment of Geoffrey's, for example.
I agree that we could all tone down the rudeness.
Should he repent for his choice of words if he was right in lashing out like the prophets of old lashed out at hypocrisy and oppression?
I just don't see why one should feel obligated to have extended pointless discussions with every stranger that comes along on the web.
The Bible opines:
"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."
Your Bible verse doesn't apply to the situation I described. I didn't say the person had sinned against me. I just said I have no obligation to continue pointless conversations.
Also see Titus 3:9-11 (aka the convicting verse of the week): “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
I wich we all could realize, and remember, that blog posts and comments are different things to different people, and at times different things at differrent times by the same people.
I think Neil thinks out his posts, and most of his comments, completely.
I think Geoffrey -- and here I go, gossiping, but we really are not backbiting, not yet, anyway! -- totally thinks out his posts completely, and most of his comments. And, I agree that my brother Geoffrey can be absolutely viscious, withering even, with his words. As a professional wordsmith, I'm agog sometimes. Words hurt. Bad sometimes.
I, my own self, rarely think through a post before posting it. Most times I am thinking out loud with my posts -- AND with my comments.
"At the end of the day," as John Shelby Spong actually did say when he spoke at my church last year, "even I don't believe everything I say!"
In other words, he thinks as he speaks, as I think as a type most of the time -- and I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
One thing that I simply, usually, cannot abide: Question me on specific spiritual ideas, do not attempt to "correct" me, I mean in the big spiritual brother sort of way (I've been at this for 35 years now; I will accept "correction" only from those who've been at it longer, and then not always (Mom2!) -- :-). And, it enrages me when someone not just questions me on some specific thing but dares to say, er, blog to my face that I can't possibly be a Christian, or to even suggest that. One, no person on this earth can make such a determination about any other person. Period. Two, to do so in the face of one's regular professions to the contrary, I think it borders on a kind of blasphemy -- the kind that questions the work of God, and wants to attribute it to the Other Side.
Daddio and I, though, I think long ago past the poitn of no return. He slams me, I'm gonna slam him back. He's an eye-for-an-eye kind of guy. I will gladly oblige him. He cools it, I'll cool it.
You reckon it could be reciprocated?
The reason I ask is because (unless I'm mistaken) each and every one listed above has been saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. Each and every one has asked Jesus to forgive their sin and asked Jesus to be the Lord of their life. And each and every one acknowledges the above as the Way to salvation.
We may disagree on how we read the Bible or on particular sins or the interpretation of particular scriptures but, in that regard, we are all very much like the Early Church who disagreed repeatedly, parted ways, argued, had internal disputes and yet, at their best, were easily identified as Christians by their love for one another.
I wonder if we couldn't do the same.
I agree, what we say matters and I try to avoid deliberately hurtful words (sometimes failing).
But does that mean that you think Jesus was wrong for using aggressively hurtful words? That the prophets were wrong when they did so? That other NT writers were wrong for doing so?
But to make a broad comparison of that to Geoffrey's "whiny ass titty baby" comment (and who knows what else) is beyond absurd. I only mention this as an example of why I don't feel compelled to waste my time with discussions like this and plan on doing much less of it.
"every one listed above has been saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus"
I sort of agree with ER in that we need to be careful about questioning someone's salvation (though there are passages that indicate how to evaluate people).
By the same reasoning, it is just as bad to assume someone is saved just because they say certain things. People who continually say the opposite of what the Bible does give reason to question their claims to be Christian.
I don't believe any of we so-called "liberals" speak the opposite of what the Bible says as we understand it. Could our understanding be lacking? Sure. It is always a safe bet to say that you or I or Eric or ER could be wrong.
But it is because of this, our common flawed humanity, that we need to be careful about confusing what God says with what we think the Bible says. There are some passages/teachings that are more clear than others.
We all agree beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's Word teaches us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, to overcome evil with good, that we are to take up the cross and follow Jesus. Those are just straightforward quotes.
But is smoking sinful? Drinking alcohol? Getting a divorce (in the case of infidelity or abuse, for instance)? Remarrying after getting divorced?
Not every teaching comes with a clear-cut stamp of God's approval. Most of what we disagree over are interpretations of God's Word. Even when it seems obvious, it is often still our interpretation - which is different than saying it is God's Word.
God's Word says, "overcome evil with good and love your enemies" - Dan interprets that to mean that Christians ought not kill their enemies but find a Good way to overcome any evil. That seems like an obvious "If you believe the first statement, then the second statement is a near certainty as well" kind of thought, at least to me. But we all know that we can agree on the literal teaching "love your enemies" and disagree with the "don't kill your enemies - or their children" corrolary of Dan's.
That being the case, it behooves me to be humble enough to admit that the second teaching is merely my interpretation of God's Word, and not God's Word.
Would it not behoove all of us to behave similarly?
Well, see, we disagree right there. I don't think that's bad at all. The only "creed" the earliest beoievers had was "Jesus is Lord." Granted, there is that stuff about "Lord, Lord" and "I never knew you" -- but that *has* to refer to fakes, not people who earnestly accept Jesus's Lordship.
Re, "People who continually say the opposite of what the Bible does give reason to question their claims to be Christian."
Of course, I think the very premise of that is faulty. The very crux of our arguments has to do with what the Bible says and means.
I assert that the Bible really is not that clear about very much at all. You assert that it is clear on most everything it touches on.
You have about 18 and half -- well, no, starting with when the Canon as formed, about 15 and a half centuries of church history and tradition backing you up, and I have about a century and a half of Christian scholarship, as well church history and tradition, backing me up.
"What the Bible says," I believe, only makes sense when one takes the writer, the time, the place, the audience, the culture, etc., etc., into first consideration. "What the Bible says," you believe (I think) makes the same sense to people today as it did then, because, as "God's Word," it was written FOR us now, as well as believers then.
That is quite a chasm to overcome. Perhaps it cannot be overcome. Perhaps we shouldn't even try. Perhaps we all should concentrate on Jesus -- as each of us understands Him -- and let the other stuff slide.
But then, then we wouldn't have much to say to one another at all, for the ssme reason that "good news doesn't sell newspapers." Getting along gets boring real fast.
Another thing to keep in mind: The Internet lets people encounter other people they probably never ever would have in the Real World. Birds of a feather, ya know. Conservative Christians and Liberal Christians, in the RW, know one another basically by stereotypes, I think. When we bring those stereotypes into blogdom, it automatically poisons thw atmosphere, or at least pollutes it some.
Another thing at play -- and I don't know what to do about it other than acknoledge it -- is that Dan and I, I know, both used to consider ourselves fundamentalists, and because of our exprience we know where conservatives are coming from in a way that conservatives do not know about liberal believers. That gives former fundies an unfair advantage in an argument, and it loads us for cheap shots, I think. I do not know anyone who started out as a lib and turned conservative.
Yet another thing that causes sparks -- and hey, let's all admit that it can be fun until it gets hurtful -- is secular politics.
Gentlemen, and Mom2, too, is realy is possible to be a Democrat and a Christian. Really. And I hereby acknowledge that, as hard as it is for me to understand, it is possible to be a conservative Republican and support the war in Iraq and the president and be a Christian. And thosr two things might actually be the hardest things to accept one of another.
I think the best we can hope for, realistically, is to maybe give one another the benefit of the doubt, to try harder to address issues and ideas and not persons and personalities, and to be slower to take offense and quicker to make amends.
I really like cussin' and discussin' with all of y'all, for different reasons. I even like Daddio when he doesn't slam me -- and that includes especially calling me "Rev." or anything like that) every single time he sees me. It's childish. And I repeat my promise to respond to it childishly.
My intent here was not to slam Geoffrey. But to call him out for being unChristian in his language. A rebuke, if you will. This should not be construed, however, that I feel I'm superior to Geoff... I'm not. His actions at his own blog alone dishonors-- to my mind --the savior that bought him. He can vehemently disagree with me however much he wants, I simply object to the "Character" of his vehemence.
Some of what you say, ER hits home. I DO question your faith and quite often. I have a lot of trouble seeing how what is plain as day to me can be so shrouded and overcast to you and others. And I do sometimes latch onto things you say and use them as bludgeons... this is but one failing of mine. There's nothing wrong with "latching on" provided the way I use it is consistent with my walk with Christ. Your avatar was well represented in another post here! :-)
I'm all for "learning to get along" with you guys on the Left, so long as I don't have to compromise the Gospel that saved me... which is embodied in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
I'm sure you realize that we think similarly. The Gospel is as simple as accepting God's grace through faith in Jesus. Accepting Jesus' teachings as Right, repenting of going our way and seeking to make Jesus' Way our way, by God's grace, as well.
And then to see all these other things that people would add on - additional hoops to jump through - and to see some what seems like crystal clear teachings of Jesus ignored in favor of more American/Western human traditions - it all seems quite clear to us that many fundamentalists have gone down a road that isn't Jesus' way at all and it is hard for us to figure out why it isn't clear to them as well.
But then, we are none of us perfect, as we all realize. Which is why ER and I tend to cling to what may seem like fewer essentials than others.
I think we all agree that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and anyone who is teaching that we ought to hate our neighbors is teaching an anti-Christian message. But the Trinity? Opposition to gay marriage? Opposition to war?
These are never spelled out in so many words and so humility is called for.
Thanks for the link.
ER, we agree on that. I think you need to take all that and more into account when reading the Bible - especially the context of the passage.
"I think we all agree that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and anyone who is teaching that we ought to hate our neighbors is teaching an anti-Christian message."
I used to agree with that, but then you convinced me that the Bible isn't all God's word, so who's to say? I'll just pick the parts I like and go with those.
Seriously, the passages on marriage and homosexual behavior are really clear as well. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" is at least as clear as the examples you gave. And the context couldn't be more clear, either: A list of sins to avoid that God was going to punish the pagan Canaanites for (i.e., they obviously weren't Israelite-specific laws).
That's just one example, and when you use your reasoning to get around it you prove too much, in that you have also rationalized away sleeping with animals, your father's wife, your neighbor's wife, etc. (see Problems with pro-gay theology).
So once again, and for the final time, Dan, we are miles apart. This isn't about playing nice. I'm sure you're a swell husband, father, neighbor, etc. and do lots of good deeds. It is about a foundational level of trust that just isn't there, and doesn't appear that it will ever be there. I just can't get around the "It's all inspired . . . God's word . . . but actually it isn't" kind of chatter. I find it to be disingenuous and highly unproductive. So why should I bother?
I appreciate the sentiments about more civil blogging and endorse them, but I disagree with the conclusion that I'm just not understanding you.
I need to go repent for violating Titus 3 and others.
Peace, all.
I'm sorry that when I read the Bible and pray over what God is saying that I find some messages that displease you, but I must go with God as best I understand God - I must obey God and not Neil. So, you'll just have to accept that or not. It's the truth.
My offer for simple, non-accusatory and clarifying dialog remains.
I think you and I have been doing better this week, Eric.
Would you give that much rope to one of us, Dan?
I doubt it.
"...were all to agree to a truce - to a starting over fresh..."
So...who gets to decide what is rude and what is not?
Does rudeness included thinly-veiled, barely-subtle disrespect?
If so, I'm in.
Dan...would you consider voting for Mike Huckabee next Novemeber?
The Bible opines:
"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."
Dan, why don't you comment at my place anymore?
Not that I really miss your comments,,,just curious in light of the scripture you quoted.
Actually, I totally agree with Geoffrey's reasoning quoted by you above...and have been blogging accordingly since coming to the conclusion that he has reached.
I know you. I know my leftist opponents...WELL!
And I just don't give a flying -freak what you ...or they...have to say anymore.
Nope. I'm not retreating. I'll be kind about it, but here's the answer:
I'm to say, Neil. I am.
Not because I am God -- but because I am NOT God.
I'll pick the verses in this book which you equate, utterly, with "the Word God" but I insist merely includes the Word of God. I will pick them.
Not having anything else to rely on -- aside from 15 and a half centuries of serious tradition, plus 150 or so years of serious Christian scholarship -- I will, in fact, rely on my thoughts, and others of like faith and mind, in discerning the truth, which used to be the Baptist way. If I get my hip broker while wrestling with an angel, as in the biblical account. so be it.
And you will be the one to withdraw fellowship if you insist. Not me, and not others like me.
Seems to me like all of our efforts would be better spent witnessing to the lost, and those who consciously reject the Gospel as a whole, rather than other professed believers.
Ben-T: If we ever quit fightin' amongst ourselves, yer done for. :-) :-) If not, well, you know where all the Bibles are, and you've shown you think about it all. What you do with it up to you. I care, but I do not pretend to care much, about what you do with it. That's up to you.
This IS the Body of Christ.
A representative sample, I mean.
What better example could there be of our need for Intervention? Even as recipients of the greatest gift ever given, and heirs to the Greatest Story Ever Told -- we still tend to tear into one another like a pack of starvin' hounds!
Thank God for God, is what I say!
I'm not sure who this ozarka character is, but he knows nothing about me, so please refrain from claims like this.
I have given much careful thought to much of this, and my only regret is that I spent so much emotional energy in self-justification on my own sight, rather than seriously engaging. That is part of the problem - I say I believe in dialogue, and then go off on a rant on my own space without hearing what is said here.
I think it is always better to talk to one another, even if we are shouting, than to go off to our respective corners and mumble about how ill-treated we are. Despite my claims to the contrary, there was a bit of whine in my rejection of ELAshley's claim that I was the rudest person he had encountered on the internet. Perhaps that is true. My laughter was at the thought, because if he ventured to other sites, I am quite sure my taunts would be as nothing. He and I at least share a dedication to Christ and faith in the grace of God. I am quite sure he could attempt to witness and call to repent at sites where he would be treated quite shabbily indeed.
Having said all this, I will reiterate - reading the comment thread here, despite my initial anger over the entire subject, has been a learning experience (in a positive way).
I will also admit that I still want nothing to do with Neil. I find him otiose. Notice I do not say he isn't a Christian, or should repent for saying unChristian things. I just really want nothing to do with him, as I find him singularly incapable of listening, of true dialogue, of entering imaginatively in to the mind and heart of others who live and believe differently than he does.
Anyone else, though, is more than welcome whenever, and I will treat you with all the respect you show me. Just know, I cannot promise not to act out of anger, even a calculated anger.
Certainly that chapter talks about avoiding "foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." And there is some wisdom in that (perhaps I should heed it).
But first of all, what constitutes a foolish dispute? Discussions about how to read God's Word - is that a foolish dispute? I don't think any Christians here think that. And, for the most part, that is what we have engaged in here and elsewhere. And we NEED to be able to discuss our differences in how to read and interpret the Bible. That is not what that passage is talking about, I don't think.
But aside from that, that passage and other passages like it emphasize a great deal more than just not talking to the one you disagree with.
May I remind us:
and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children...
1 Corinthians 4
Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.
~Titus 3
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
~Ephesians 4
But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive... slanderous... traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them.
~2 Timothy 3
...Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels.
A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness...
~2 Timothy 2
The point is, even if someone is contentious, the slandering, childish name-calling and viciousness has no place in Christian correction.
I've seen it too often where someone bans me or others from their blog because we have expressed a difference of opinion and they do so with a dismissing, patronizing or downright mean-spirited tone - spreading lies and rumors that they can't validate.
If we're going to not want others to chat with us, then we ought to just tell them to go away and be done with it. Give up the slander and viciousness or else we'll be the ones guilty of violating the very passages that we're throwing around.
True. And yet being human, and subject to the flesh, it is often hard to balance the attitude your chosen verses express as ideal with commands like Jude 3
"...earnestly contend for the faith which was once [and for all] delivered unto the Saints"
The trick-- which admittedly I find very difficult to perform --is to balance the attitude your verses express and the express command of Jude 3, while keeping ever in mind to "Be ye angry, and sin not..." according to Ephesians 4:26. What jugglers we are expected to be!
What James 2:10 has to say about the Law can be applied here as well...
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
When I first started working in kitchens almost 30 years ago, the very first thing my first chef taught me (besides how to properly wash dishes) was to Juggle. First day on the job I was taken back to the cooler, handed 3 lemons, and was taught to literally juggle. I didn't get it at first; in fact I didn't get it till years later, but unless one learns to juggle he or she will never be a good cook. Years later when I was in the 'teacher' position that was the first thing I taught my cooks as well. The point is, to be successful we must learn how to keep more than one thing in the forefront of our minds at all times. The same is true of the Christian walk.
Learn to be respectful, sinning not, while also contending for the faith... More flies with honey, and all that.
Now that is an unnecessary type comment and one that causes tempers to rise. Surely, one side is not all to blame.
All I was trying to say was that Neil et al were the ones to have cited Titus 3 several times here lately, which is a fact.
I fully understand that I'm an arrogant SOB that can be prickly to deal with.
At the same time, I believe I generally try (and with moderate success) to be as polite or politer than the next fella. I'm usually trying to merely explain my position and why we disagree.
I rarely express an out and out mistruth although I know I have misunderstood other's point. Which is why I so often ask, "Do you really think..." and other clarifying questions.
Nor do I ever presume to know what another person does or thinks (as in, "Dan just ruins every blog discussion he goes to and he mostly frequents conservative sites. He does enjoy stirring up strife") but tend to try to stick to what they've actually said.
Eric is absolutely correct that we have a balancing act - contending for the faith and being prepared to explain our position on the one hand versus loving our neighbors and even our enemies on the other hand. But, as Paul noted, "the greatest of these is Love," and I'm advocating we err on the side of graciousness and love - especially in areas where the Bible does not explicitly say "Thou shalt believe this..."
I'm adamant that we are to love our enemies and will not be moved from that position - it is straight from God's mouth.
On the other hand, I'm strongly opposed to war-making by Christians, but I do not categorically rebuke all war-making, since that is an interpretation of Scripture (one I think obvious, but an interpretation nonetheless) and therefore I'm a bit more circumspect. Just a bit.
For example.
Nor do I ever presume to know what another person does or thinks (as in, "Dan just ruins every blog discussion he goes to and he mostly frequents conservative sites. He does enjoy stirring up strife") but tend to try to stick to what they've actually said.
And I meant to add...
THAT would be slander and presumptuous of me to assume I know that much about them when I'm quite frankly not omniscient. And, that being the case, I can see in the very passages they've used to try to denigrate me that they are wrong in how that regard. Slander is wrong. Saying something about someone that you don't know to be true is wrong.
And again, I'm more adamant about that because it is a direct and consistent command from the Bible
That's all I'm saying.
Just ignore these last 12 words.
How does someone know if I mostly frequent conservative sites? First off, they must follow me around to know that kind of information. Secondly, they must know which sites I go to where I don't comment at the site - which would be some trick.
Wouldn't you think that person actually means, "It sure SEEMS like he frequents mostly conservative blogs?"
And what of the comment, "He enjoys stirring up strife..."? To make that comment, wouldn't that person have to know my heart and mind? And isn't it obvious they are wrong, since it breaks my heart to see the sorts of bitter slander and tirades that happen in the name of Christ.
Don't you think that someone saying that probably means, "IT SEEMS TO ME like he enjoys stirring up strife"? But by stating it like that, isn't that a clear case of slander - which the Bible condemns and for which none of these people ever apologize (rarely, anyway)? Instead, they'll slough it off, saying "It seems that way to me" if you hold them to some proof.
Do you understand what I and others are saying - that some on the religious right don't seem to know how to have a civil conversation with someone that disagrees with them on maybe a handful or two of issues? When they can cite a Bible verse and fail to recognize the irony that they are condemning me (and others) based on a hunch ALL THE WHILE they are directly breaking several teachings? Do you get how weird that strikes us?
And when we ask you all about it (as I'm doing now), the question most often just gets ignored and left to fester? Do you understand what I'm asking?
I understand your concern about Christians being "Civil" with each other. Believe me, I'm there with you.
That being said, I do not relate the first paragraph as an indictment, but only in lieu of 'Exhibit A' in the case of "What Conservatives See When They Encounter Dan Trabue at Their Favorite Haunts." Much like Geoffrey and ER and YOU experience when I or Bubba, or Neil, or Mom invade your favored haunts.
It's a matter of perspective... what SEEMS the case-- whatever your intent or ours. Recognizing and accepting this will go a long way toward civility on both sides if... IF... both sides can be honest about it.
I go to most of those blogs regularly. I comment rarely because I am in agreement with what they say oftentimes and have nothing to add to the conversation but an occasional "amen."
On the other hand, when I go to some more "conservative" blogs, I do tend to disagree more. And when I disagree, I'll offer commentary.
I don't always comment on each of your posts, right? Sometimes, I agree, sometimes, I have no opinion. Seems logical to me.
But about strife, I'm sure you will agree that if someone goes to a place to correct a bad teaching, there oftentimes IS strife. People don't like to be corrected. And so they often go on the attack. Tis human nature.
And so, yes, to them, my going in and saying (for instance) "When you say that 'Communism=godlessness,' you are making too broad a statement, because there are observably God-believing and God-fearing Christian Communists around..." when I do something like that, it's not an attack on my part, just a correction of a misstatement on their part.
But inevitably, at most places that I might make that sort of correction, I am called a communist, a hater of liberty, etc, etc.
In short, I am slandered. And again, it is not the slander towards me personally that concerns me, but rather the demonization of those brothers and sisters you merely disagree with and how that negatively witnesses about God to others.
By brandishing the Ninth Commandment, which you ARE wont to do, you help build that very wall of strife you would like to tear down.
It SEEMS to you that I and others accuse you falsely, but oftentimes from our perspective it SEEMS as though you DO create strife, teach false doctrine, etc. That's not to say you ARE, only that our PERCEPTION points to a PERCEIVED intent on your part.
And this discussion is beginning to look a lot like what Titus 3:9 recommends against. Getting us both to agree is beginning to look as impossible as two squirrels sharing half an acorn! It's becoming a SEEMINGLY never-ending "Yes, but..." convention.
Eric, I honestly don't see how this is a matter of semantics. It's not a matter of it SEEMING like I've been misrepresented when people say "He enjoys stirring up strife," when that is not a fact (and I'm the one to know). I'm honestly asking - HOW is that a matter of semantics?
Either they have accused me of enjoying stirring strife or they haven't, and that is what their words say - how else should I interpret it?
I must say that I find these sorts of conversations hard to understand. It SEEMS like to me that some who disagree with me will hear me say "X" and THEN interpret it to mean, "Well, he must also mean 'Y', since you can't believe X if you don't believe Y" - so they dispute my support of Y when I've never said I supported Y.
And now, it seems like you're saying that when they say "I enjoy spreading strife," that I should interpret that to mean that they mean something else other than what they've said. Can't we just have conversations based upon what the other has actually said rather than having to guess what they meant?
Is that how we ought to deal with these matters? Come now, let us reason...
[and to be clear, my first paragraph was a demonstration of this style of remonstration, not what I actually believe.]