tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2637927017608590560..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Anger ManagementRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46995914275177782912008-10-19T10:31:00.000-04:002008-10-19T10:31:00.000-04:00ANONYMOUS SAID:“I was just asking whether this lin...ANONYMOUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“I was just asking whether this line of defense you seek wouldn't excuse a Christian being an all-purpose jerk. __It seems that it would. And that seems to be a reductio of your response. If your argument leads to the conclusion that Christians have absolutely no obligation to be kind in their speech, then something has gone wrong in your argument.”<BR/><BR/>Since you haven’t shown that it leads to that conclusion, your objection is fallacious. Try again.<BR/><BR/>“It doesn't follow from the fact that God and Jesus and the Saints were sometimes angry that any particular act of anger is justified. I don't think Victor said that angry is always and everywhere wrong, for all agents. So your response is just inadequate to Victor's charges.”<BR/><BR/>To the contrary, my response is perfectly adequate. I’m answering the critics on their own grounds. They didn’t qualify their charges. Therefore, I drew attention to some obvious counterexamples. <BR/><BR/>“What is unbiblical about Christians trying to maintain a respectful discourse between each other? That's all Victor was asking for.”<BR/><BR/>i) One of your problems is that you have a very minimalistic and superficial definition of “respectful”, as if it’s limited to using nice words.<BR/><BR/>At a deeper level, Reppert is not a respectful opponent. For one thing, he has a habit of caricaturing the views of his opponents. And when he’s corrected, it continues to caricature their views.<BR/><BR/>You define “respect” in stylistic terms—I define “respect” in substantive terms.<BR/><BR/>ii) In addition, there’s no reason I should respect disreputable arguments. An opponent doesn’t have a right to demand respect unless he makes an effort to use intellectually respectable arguments.<BR/><BR/>You’re concerned with surface—I’m concerned with content. <BR/><BR/>iii) On a related note, not all positions are respectable. For example, some professing Christians are white supremacists. I’ve dealt with them. Are they entitled to my respect? No.<BR/><BR/>“Can you be explicit about the criteria one has to meet in order to righfully be the target of wrathful, angry speech by Christians? And can you explain how Victor meets that criteria?”<BR/><BR/>i) Of course, “angry” or “wrathful” speech is a state of mind which critics imputed to me. They’re in no position to know what my state of mind was. So your question is predicated on a false premise.<BR/><BR/>ii) To take one example, the Bible uses harsh language for murderers. By supporting the murderous policies of Obama, Reppert is inciting the murder of infants. That merits harsh language. <BR/><BR/>“It seems to me that God is long-suffering, and never used wrath as a means of first resort. Would you say that's a fair assessment?”<BR/><BR/>You continue to build on a false premise. <BR/><BR/>“Before you advanced to trying to convince Victor by insulting him, did you exhaust other means? Did you first try being respectful in your speech? (And by the way, being respectful doesn't at all diminish the logical force of an argument. If anything, being respectful adds to the persuasive power of an argument, while very few people have ever been convinced by being insulted.)”<BR/><BR/>If you bothered to review the history of my exchanges with Reppert, you’d realize that it started out amicably enough, but became harsher because he has a long track record of caricaturing his opponents and repeating the same objections after he’s been repeatedly corrected. He’s done that with Calvinism and counterterrorism, to cite two past examples. <BR/><BR/>“Sure, abortionists take lives, but aren't you doing something as bad, and possibly worse, when your behavior turns away souls? The kind of mean-spiritedness you're promoting does turn away eternal souls. The atheists on Reppert's blog cite his respectfulness as part of what makes his witness persuasive, and they cite the kind of mean-spiritedness you advocate as being ‘Biblical’ as part of what turns them off about Christianity.__Many of my unsaved friends often pose the same question: if Christians know God, how come so many of them are meaner, angrier, more bitter, and more unhappy than atheists? I mean, say you're right, and angry speech is permissable. Since what you're saying offends so many people, wouldn't it then fall into the category of meat offered unto idols? Maybe there's nothing inherently wrong about it, but if it's offending people and hurting your witness, it's not worth having at that cost. At some point, instead of trying to prooftext our way out of ever having to say we're sorry, maybe we could all just make a small effort to behave better?”<BR/><BR/>i) The first question is whether people have a right to be offended. The Bible is very offensive to many people. Should we edit out of the offensive commandments in Scripture? <BR/><BR/>If people are offended for no good reason, then the proper response is not to capitulate to their faulty standards, but to correct them.<BR/><BR/>ii) How many atheists have been converted to Christianity as a result of Reppert’s selective civility?<BR/><BR/>iii) You’re also being very naïve at this point. Atheists like John Loftus try to exploit the situation through a disingenuous expression of sympathy for dear old Reppert. If you were to chart his conduct over the years, on his own blog, or posting comments on other blogs, you’d see that this is just calculated pose on his part.<BR/><BR/>iv) Finally, your concern is morally frivolous. You fret over harsh words while you turn a blind eye to harsh actions (e.g. unrestricted abortion, infanticide, &c.).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67892047289664312402008-10-18T19:15:00.000-04:002008-10-18T19:15:00.000-04:001. I didn't mean to call you an all-purpose jerk. ...1. I didn't mean to call you an all-purpose jerk. I'm sorry if I left that impression. I was using a universal you in my last paragraph, but I guess that wasn't clear. I was just asking whether this line of defense you seek wouldn't excuse a Christian being an all-purpose jerk. <BR/><BR/>It seems that it would. And that seems to be a reductio of your response. If your argument leads to the conclusion that Christians have absolutely no obligation to be kind in their speech, then something has gone wrong in your argument. It seems to me, at least, that we need a good reason to be unkind, and that we shouldn't be angry and insulting with each other as a means of first resort. <BR/><BR/>2. I wouldn't describe your behavior as angry, either. It's just mean-spirited, and frankly petty. Unfortunately, I think that's worse than angry.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't follow from the fact that God and Jesus and the Saints were sometimes angry that any particular act of anger is justified. I don't think Victor said that angry is always and everywhere wrong, for all agents. So your response is just inadequate to Victor's charges.<BR/><BR/>3. What is unbiblical about Christians trying to maintain a respectful discourse between each other? That's all Victor was asking for.<BR/><BR/>4. Can you be explicit about the criteria one has to meet in order to righfully be the target of wrathful, angry speech by Christians? And can you explain how Victor meets that criteria?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that God is long-suffering, and never used wrath as a means of first resort. Would you say that's a fair assessment? Before you advanced to trying to convince Victor by insulting him, did you exhaust other means? Did you first try being respectful in your speech? (And by the way, being respectful doesn't at all diminish the logical force of an argument. If anything, being respectful adds to the persuasive power of an argument, while very few people have ever been convinced by being insulted.)<BR/><BR/>5. I'm pro-life, thanks for asking.<BR/><BR/>Sure, abortionists take lives, but aren't you doing something as bad, and possibly worse, when your behavior turns away souls? The kind of mean-spiritedness you're promoting does turn away eternal souls. The atheists on Reppert's blog cite his respectfulness as part of what makes his witness persuasive, and they cite the kind of mean-spiritedness you advocate as being "Biblical" as part of what turns them off about Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Many of my unsaved friends often pose the same question: if Christians know God, how come so many of them are meaner, angrier, more bitter, and more unhappy than atheists? I mean, say you're right, and angry speech is permissable. Since what you're saying offends so many people, wouldn't it then fall into the category of meat offered unto idols? Maybe there's nothing inherently wrong about it, but if it's offending people and hurting your witness, it's not worth having at that cost.<BR/><BR/>At some point, instead of trying to prooftext our way out of ever having to say we're sorry, maybe we could all just make a small effort to behave better?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435143576471476592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43952942858491310792008-10-18T18:22:00.000-04:002008-10-18T18:22:00.000-04:00Steve writes: "It’s appropriate to use harsh langu...Steve writes: "It’s appropriate to use harsh language when the modern individual is acting analogous to individuals on whom Scripture uses harsh language."<BR/><BR/>I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. Scripture doesn't promise Hellfire just for mass murderers, abortionists, child molesters, people who rape elderly women and Adolf Hitler. It promises Hell for people who don't address God frequently enough or at all, or people who address Him with the wrong title. It also promises Hell for those who have sex without first making promises to each other in front of a preacher, to those who are overly fond of their evening chiantis or merlots and even those who just can't put down that chicken wing (after all, St. Paul wept over those "gods were their bellies"). In case that isn't enough, all divorcees are sent there (they're adulterers) as are all gays and fornicators. Liars too (this includes people who cheat on their taxes and men who tell their wives they look GREAT in that evening gown when they really think it makes them look "top heavy".)<BR/><BR/>Need I even mention pagan nations like China, Japan or India? I'd guess that 80 to 90% of them are headed straight to Hell. That's a lot of people to be "righteously angry" at.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38969648204266886432008-10-18T16:52:00.000-04:002008-10-18T16:52:00.000-04:00ANONYMOUS SAID:“So, let me ask you guys this:__Wha...ANONYMOUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“So, let me ask you guys this:__What rudeness would such a line of defense not excuse? Is what you're saying is, since some people in the Bible were occasionally angry, then the gloves are off? Nothing is off limits?__Because if that's not what you're saying, if you recognize that there is a line of insulting, angry discourse that it is unChristian to cross, then simply identifying passages in the Bible where much better people were justifiably angry in their speech doesn't in any way show that we are justifiably angry in ours.__So, let's just be explicit here. Are you saying there's never any need for a Christian to carefully examine his own statements to see if he is sufficiently reflecting the character of Christ? Do you really think your ability to grab prooftexts of Jesus being angry in completely different situations gives you carte blanche to just be an all-purpose jerk?”<BR/><BR/>1.Of course, when you yourself call someone an “all-purpose jerk,” then you yourself are rude and insulting. So perhaps you should redirect your questions to the person in the mirror.<BR/><BR/>2.As a matter of fact, I don’t accept the charge of “anger.” That’s just a dismissive imputation on the part of those who have nothing substantive to offer.<BR/><BR/>I’m merely answering them on their own grounds: If they’re going to make a blanket condemnation of anger or harsh rhetoric, then I’ll point out the unscriptural character of their condemnation. <BR/><BR/>3.There is also an attempt in many putatively Christian circles to impose an unscriptural speech code on the rest of us, in defiance of Biblical discourse. <BR/><BR/>4.It’s appropriate to use harsh language when the modern individual is acting analogous to individuals on whom Scripture uses harsh language. <BR/><BR/>5.And it would be nice to see you redirect your misplaced indignation at people who support the mass murder of infants. Your moral priorities leave much to be desired. You fret over harsh words while you turn a blind eye to harsh deeds. Time for you to acquire some moral perspective.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80994034131611579472008-10-18T16:30:00.000-04:002008-10-18T16:30:00.000-04:00So, let me ask you guys this:What rudeness would s...So, let me ask you guys this:<BR/><BR/>What rudeness would such a line of defense not excuse? Is what you're saying is, since some people in the Bible were occasionally angry, then the gloves are off? Nothing is off limits?<BR/><BR/>Because if that's not what you're saying, if you recognize that there is a line of insulting, angry discourse that it is unChristian to cross, then simply identifying passages in the Bible where much better people were justifiably angry in their speech doesn't in any way show that we are justifiably angry in ours.<BR/><BR/>So, let's just be explicit here. Are you saying there's never any need for a Christian to carefully examine his own statements to see if he is sufficiently reflecting the character of Christ? Do you really think your ability to grab prooftexts of Jesus being angry in completely different situations gives you carte blanche to just be an all-purpose jerk?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435143576471476592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20474069807180797432008-10-17T17:45:00.000-04:002008-10-17T17:45:00.000-04:00I'll have to agree with the Triabloggers on this o...I'll have to agree with the Triabloggers on this one. Actually, the Bible talks MOSTLY about wrath, death and destruction and promises it to most people. There are so few verses that are "nice" and that talk about love that they could fit on a cocktail napkin. <BR/><BR/>No "kissy-poo" book, this Bible.<BR/><BR/>For more details, see here (although you'll have to splice the URL together):<BR/><BR/>http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/<BR/>reports/<BR/>20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf<BR/><BR/>Good stuff, yeah.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27996865972452297242008-10-17T13:07:00.000-04:002008-10-17T13:07:00.000-04:00I made a similar argument in one of my posts. [Of...I made a similar argument in one of my posts. [Of course, Steve's are much better than mine, but if you want to take a look...]<BR/><BR/>http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/knowledge-of-god-series.html<BR/><BR/>It's the three TAG posts.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81920510349460800672008-10-17T12:23:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:23:00.000-04:00The basic idea is that truth is an attribute of tr...The basic idea is that truth is an attribute of true beliefs. What is truth? What is true? Beliefs are true (or false).<BR/><BR/>So truths require a believer. A mental agent who knows them.<BR/><BR/>This has the potential for a theistic proof. For example, human beings discover truths. We discover truths about math.<BR/><BR/>But we obviously didn't believe them before we knew them. So what makes them true? In what do they inhere? What made them true before we discovered them?<BR/><BR/>The mind of God.<BR/><BR/>Or, take secular cosmology. According to secular cosmology, there are times when the universe has no intelligent life-forms.<BR/><BR/>Does this mean there are no truths about the universe when there are no intelligent life-forms with true beliefs?<BR/><BR/>Take the statement that there was a time when there were no intelligent life-forms in the universe. <BR/><BR/>Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is (now) true, was it still true at the time when there were no intelligent life-forms?<BR/><BR/>If we ground truth in human beings, then this leads to self-refuting consequences like the above.<BR/><BR/>But if truth ultimately resides in the mind of God, then we can avoid these self-refuting consequences.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24222600907134753142008-10-17T12:10:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:10:00.000-04:00Steve if you have time can you explain to me in la...Steve if you have time can you explain to me in layman's term the alethic argument for the existence of God I read your Arguing for God article but I cannot grasp the concept.LonelyBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02296231795980808737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32085486770243667612008-10-17T02:58:00.000-04:002008-10-17T02:58:00.000-04:00Are you assuming that those verses show that Steve...Are you assuming that those verses show that Steve's biblical examples <I>do not</I> have "anger issues" according to Reppert and his leftist lackie's assumptions? Certainly <I>both</I> your verses and Steve's can be true. I can't really figure out the purpose you think your post serves. Did Steve <I>deny</I> any of truths of your verses. Certainly if we don't assume that the Bible is contradictory, then the examples in Steve's verses are <I>compatible</I> with being loving.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39180340121731278322008-10-16T23:28:00.000-04:002008-10-16T23:28:00.000-04:001 John 4, 20-21If someone says, "I love God," and ...1 John 4, 20-21<BR/><BR/>If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 5, 22<BR/><BR/>But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.<BR/><BR/>John 13, 34-35<BR/><BR/>"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."<BR/><BR/>2 Peter 1, 5-9<BR/><BR/>Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.<BR/>For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.<BR/><BR/>Colossians 3: 8, 12-14<BR/><BR/>But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.<BR/><BR/>And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 13, 1-8<BR/><BR/>If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.<BR/> Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.<BR/> Love never fails;Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435143576471476592noreply@blogger.com