Name-calling

C Mc · September 2018

@GaoLu said:
@C_M_ Consider this.

GaoLu,
I don't agree. Pray for me. CM

Bill_Coley · September 2018

What these forums need more than anything Gao Lu, is posters who are committed to one of the forums’ fundamental directives: “Criticize ideas, not people.”

That’s it.

These forums don’t need lengthy diatribes such as yours, in which one poster rails against the infirmities, real or fabricated, of other posters.
We don’t need tin foil hat conspiracies such as yours about aliases, trolls, or “fruitcakes.”

We need posters who embrace and execute “Criticize ideas, not people.”

The good news about my proposal is that it would revolutionize these forums. Threads would blossom with on-topic discussions of issues, without risk of forays and off-shoots into the intentions, alleged dark secrets, or imputed emotional challenges of the posters who expressed their views about those issues.

Visitors to the forums would witness vital, vibrant, challenging but always respectful dialogue between posters who occasionally/frequently disagreed mightily, but whose value of each other as partners in the forums’ basic enterprise prohibited their decline into gratuitous personal commentaries and other ad hominem attacks. Gone would be questions of each other’s sanity, emotional health, intelligence, or commitment to the Christian faith. No longer would anyone - visitor or participant - wonder when next one poster would call another poster “stupid,” “ignorant,” “disgusting,” an “idiot,” or a “pig.”

Posters would know, accept, and implement their forum roles:

to welcome without ridicule or disdain the ideas of other posters
to express without venom or condescension their own views
to negotiate their disagreements with other posters in a manner consistent with the “criticize ideas, not people” expectation

The bad news about my proposal, Gao Lu, is that it would require YOU to change your posting habits.

I performed a quick but good faith review of your last 100 posts in the CD forums, a review that ended in one of your August 25 posts. My mission was to look for posts that contained, or were in-full, violations of the “criticize ideas, not people.”

I was NOT looking for posts in which you expressed disagreement with other posters’ politics or points of view.
I was NOT looking for posts that voiced snarky critiques of others’ issue positions.

I looked only for criticisms of people rather their ideas.

For example, in THIS POST, you disagreed with CM, but couched your disagreement, NOT in terms of his ideas, but in terms of his honesty, intentions, and motives:

“Once again, you are neither honest nor genuine. I simply don't believe you come here to get news about Florence.”

Later in that same post, you criticized, NOT his ideas, but his intelligence:

“If you really, honestly didn't know that, there is no cure for that kind of stupid.”

I reviewed your last 100 posts and among them found examples of ad hominem comments about a fellow CD poster in 37 of them, basically, one out of every three of your posts. Is my count the final word about your posts? Of course not. I undoubtedly scored a few comments as ad hominem that others wouldn’t, and I undoubtedly chose not to score some comments as ad hominem that others would. Nevertheless, I am quite comfortable claiming that about a third of your posts include SOME form of criticism of other posters (people) not just those posters’ ideas. (BTW, if you want links to the posts I reviewed and the identity of those I included to get to 37, just say the word)

So one way my proposal would be bad news for you, Gao Lu, is that it would force you to change your posting habits. The second way it would be bad news for you is a corollary of the first: You’d have to stop lying about me.... Lying. Not mis-speaking. Not offering mistaken claims. Lying.

When you claim that I have created alias CD identities, you’re lying.
When you speculate or insinuate that CM and I are one in the same person, products of the same identity creator, you’re lying.
When in the previous edition of CD forums you insinuated that Wolfgang’s was a CD dentity of my creation, you lied.
When in the previous edition of the CD forums you insinuated that I had created CD identities for “Brad Dickey,” “Penny Lane,” and “Connor Pierson,” you lied... every time.
When in THIS POST on August 14 you acknowledged ONLY that Wolfgang’s was a CD identity that I “probably” did not create, you lied.

You have lied about me and my CD identity for years. You have lied repeatedly. You have lied pathologically. In every one of the 19 posts you have created since August 9 of this year in which you referenced, insinuated, or blatantly claimed I created such aliases...

... you lied.

You didn’t make mistakes. You didn’t accidentally overstate truth. You didn’t misinterpret observations. You lied... again and again and again and again.

The multi-year lifespan of your lies about my CD identities is awkwardly reminiscent of Donald Trump’s years-long lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace. For years, Mr. Trump repeated, always without evidence, the lie that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. The fact that he had no evidence - because there WAS none - never hindered Mr. Trump. Again and again and again he lied about the president’s homeland. Then, months after he offered a 30 second end-of-campaign reversal of his tin foil hat conspiracy theory, news media reported President Trump’s continuing skepticism about his predecessor’s birthplace.

In your case, you lied repeatedly about my CD identity during the previous edition of these forums, took a break as this version took root, and have now resumed, not with private skepticism, but open and blatant trumpeting of your lie.

What this means, Gao Lu, is that you are liar. As a person who sings is a singer, and a person who teaches is a teacher, you - a person who lies - are a liar.

NOT about your disagreement with me about the deity of Christ. Your theological views are your views.
NOT about your disagreement with me regarding Donald Trump’s leadership. Your political views are your views.
NOT about ANYTHING other than your statements and insinuations about my CD identity.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a debatable matter. This is not an "agree to disagree" moment. There is no doubt about the truth of my claims regarding your conduct in this matter. Of course, over the years you have CLAIMED and INSINUATED the existence of truth in your claims about my alleged “aliases.” But what you have never done - because you couldn’t, because it doesn’t exist - is offer proof. I’ve asked. I’ve demanded. You’ve always declined... because you had to, because your claim is a lie.

If the CD forums are to implement fully the content and intent of its “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation, you will have stop lying about me, Gao Lu.

Now what about my role in the decline of these forums? What about all those people who left? Because none of them is here to speak for him- or herself, I will not comment on their actions or motives other than to say that regarding their participation in CD forums, I assume they took the actions they believed were in their best interests.

I stand behind my posts, then as well as now. Words have always mattered to me. The “criticize ideas, not people” expectation has always mattered to me. Though I am far from a perfect poster, I would not change the basic direction or spirit of my CD posts in this or the previous edition of these forums.

I write well. I express myself and make my arguments clearly and with conviction. My high school debate coach pounded into our heads that if we made an assertion of fact, we’d better be able to back it up. That’s why I provide links to sources that support so many of my claims. What I do NOT do is attack people. I do not call people names. You will search my posts in vain in search of violations of the “criticize ideas, not people” expectation (except this post, of course! More to come about that) I am a tough debate opponent, but that’s NEVER because I fight unfairly. It’s ALWAYS because I know what I believe and I know how to present it and contend with opposing views.

Bottom line: I do not accept responsibility for the choices others have made about their involvement in these forums.

And finally a few comments about your post which prompted me to write this one:

@GaoLu said:
As long as you are present on this forum, either you or Bill or various aliases, this forum will likely never grow or mature into anything of interest to a community greater than yourself. It will remain a place where Christ and God are mocked by fake Christian platitudes, a place where politics overpowers reason, a place to celebrate filth in the name of Christianity. If there was a hint of sincerity in all that, then perhaps the conversations would be worthwhile. I detect none coming from your quarters. The mockery of Christianity is nauseating,

If you don’t like what others post, defeat their arguments with logic, reason, facts, the power of God, and the authority of faith. Sadly, instead, as your paragraph demonstrates, you choose to seek the defeat, not of the ideas of which you disapprove, but of the people to whom those ideas belong.

Until something changes, we will not win more interest unless we win only others of your ilk or unless you, Bill, or whoever creates even more personas, aliases and trolls themselves for personal entertainment.

Or until you stop lying about my alleged personas and aliases.

Unfortunately, very few people who are real and sincere have stuck it out. Over a couple years, we lost many Logos users--some very capable and good contributors. We lost Eric and Ellyn, we lost Lu and David and several others. Brian, who is a wealth of knowledge, rarely comes out of the woodwork these days. Even Dave hardly speaks up nowadays. We lost a lot of great contributors--all because of trolling by people like you (many of these people have specifically said so). Some of these have migrated to other forums. Even though we had a wide range of differences and practices, some of us became friends--we still keep in periodic contact, one of them opened his own forum, we have talked on the phone, shared burdens, prayed together.

It sounds as if you have found safe shelter from what you consider the destructive influences of these forums.

Every forum has a few fruitcakes. Some, we embrace kindly and absorb their presence with grace. We have had our share of fruitcakes, and we have lost a lot of fruitcakes--many of which appeared to be multiple aliases and personas mocking certain personality types--all invented by one sick person for sport. Such aliases are a lot of work to maintain, so they slip away. But not all fruitcakes are not necessarily trolls. Trolling is a special kind of fruitcake and trolls sometimes take down forums. I suppose that is really fun for trolls and the ultimate reward.

Again with the aliases and personas.

Presently the value of these forums would be primarily for some social science or psych undergrad to use to poke wierdos with verbal sticks to be secretly amused by their responses. That is very effective. I regret that I have done that sometimes.

What you have ALSO done “sometimes” is troll. Remember THIS CONFESSION OF YOURS (emphasis added) from March?

“Trolling is fun for some kinds of people but fogs up a positive dialog with drivel. I guess that is why some people do it. Probably I have been guilty of it sometimes. Emotional poking for a response. It's fun when I do it, even productive and justifiable, and trolling when the other guy does it.”

Your claims that I or others troll, more often than not in my view, have been confessions of your own sin.

I do appreciate Reformed and Wolfgang and Jan. I have no idea why they stick around. Or why I have. Perhaps for the reasons I listed above, in hopes that one day this could amount to something useful.

Given your angst and unrest over me AND my aliases and fake Christian platitudes, why do YOU “stick around”?

Could you change? Maybe. Very unlikely, but maybe. I don't think I will wait for that. Unless something changes soon, I will go as well and eventually that one person can troll themselves with countless aliases to their heart's content and I suppose it won't cost anyone much to allow that to happen. Now and then someone may stumble over the site and stop by to gawk at the mess. Maybe.

Regarding your future in these forums, I think you should do what you believe is in your best interests. But as long as you post in these forums, I believe you should comply fully with the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation, and you should stop lying about my CD identity.

I am very grateful to Jan for providing this forum and for his contributions. I and a couple other former CD contributors live away from American culture, largely isolated from Christians or English speaking people. A forum provides a lot of blessing for us. A chance to think in English, to interface with mature Christians, to have ideas challenged, to hear ideas that make us dig. That has occurred a few times here when engaging with mature, thinking people. Forums provide a place to think, meditate, grow, worship, touch and be touched by Godly people, especially when we swell in dark corners of the earth. Trolling has pretty much removed any such benefit from this forum. So it is.

Given what you believe is trolling’s destructive impact, why do you find it “fun,” “productive,” and “justifiable” when you do it? (See post quoted earlier)

I suggest that those of us with any continuing interest get our heads together to see if the forum is worth salvaging and if so, how to do so. Yes, I expect the trolls to smear this request into oblivion. Is it worth the effort to take the forums back? I can't do it alone. I will watch.

No, but you CAN comport with the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation on your own, and you CAN stop lying about my CD identity without anyone’s assistance.

One final thought: Haven’t I violated the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation throughout this lengthy post? Yes. I don’t excuse my violation, but I do explain it... this way: I have been the subject of more ad hominem attacks in these forums and those of the previous version of CD than ANYONE, by far (how many times has another poster questioned whether YOU’RE actually a Christian?). My goodness, I've endured 23 posts just in the last six weeks alone from Gao Lu and reformed on their tin foil hat “alias” conspiracy theory! Again and again and again I have not returned the fire. I consider this post my singular chance to cast my vision for these forums and to hold Gao Lu accountable for his continuing lies. That have I done.

reformed · September 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
What these forums need more than anything Gao Lu, is posters who are committed to one of the forums’ fundamental directives: “Criticize ideas, not people.”

That’s it.

These forums don’t need lengthy diatribes such as yours, in which one poster rails against the infirmities, real or fabricated, of other posters.

We don’t need tin foil hat conspiracies such as yours about aliases, trolls, or “fruitcakes.”

We need posters who embrace and execute “Criticize ideas, not people.”

The good news about my proposal is that it would revolutionize these forums. Threads would blossom with on-topic discussions of issues, without risk of forays and off-shoots into the intentions, alleged dark secrets, or imputed emotional challenges of the posters who expressed their views about those issues.

Visitors to the forums would witness vital, vibrant, challenging but always respectful dialogue between posters who occasionally/frequently disagreed mightily, but whose value of each other as partners in the forums’ basic enterprise prohibited their decline into gratuitous personal commentaries and other ad hominem attacks. Gone would be questions of each other’s sanity, emotional health, intelligence, or commitment to the Christian faith. No longer would anyone - visitor or participant - wonder when next one poster would call another poster “stupid,” “ignorant,” “disgusting,” an “idiot,” or a “pig.”

Posters would know, accept, and implement their forum roles:

to welcome without ridicule or disdain the ideas of other posters

to express without venom or condescension their own views

to negotiate their disagreements with other posters in a manner consistent with the “criticize ideas, not people” expectation

The bad news about my proposal, Gao Lu, is that it would require YOU to change your posting habits.

I performed a quick but good faith review of your last 100 posts in the CD forums, a review that ended in one of your August 25 posts. My mission was to look for posts that contained, or were in-full, violations of the “criticize ideas, not people.”

I was NOT looking for posts in which you expressed disagreement with other posters’ politics or points of view.

I was NOT looking for posts that voiced snarky critiques of others’ issue positions.

I looked only for criticisms of people rather their ideas.

For example, in THIS POST, you disagreed with CM, but couched your disagreement, NOT in terms of his ideas, but in terms of his honesty, intentions, and motives:

“Once again, you are neither honest nor genuine. I simply don't believe you come here to get news about Florence.”

Later in that same post, you criticized, NOT his ideas, but his intelligence:

“If you really, honestly didn't know that, there is no cure for that kind of stupid.”

I reviewed your last 100 posts and among them found examples of ad hominem comments about a fellow CD poster in 37 of them, basically, one out of every three of your posts. Is my count the final word about your posts? Of course not. I undoubtedly scored a few comments as ad hominem that others wouldn’t, and I undoubtedly chose not to score some comments as ad hominem that others would. Nevertheless, I am quite comfortable claiming that about a third of your posts include SOME form of criticism of other posters (people) not just those posters’ ideas. (BTW, if you want links to the posts I reviewed and the identity of those I included to get to 37, just say the word)

So one way my proposal would be bad news for you, Gao Lu, is that it would force you to change your posting habits. The second way it would be bad news for you is a corollary of the first: You’d have to stop lying about me.... Lying. Not mis-speaking. Not offering mistaken claims. Lying.

When you claim that I have created alias CD identities, you’re lying.

When you speculate or insinuate that CM and I are one in the same person, products of the same identity creator, you’re lying.

When in the previous edition of CD forums you insinuated that Wolfgang’s was a CD dentity of my creation, you lied.

When in the previous edition of the CD forums you insinuated that I had created CD identities for “Brad Dickey,” “Penny Lane,” and “Connor Pierson,” you lied... every time.

When in THIS POST on August 14 you acknowledged ONLY that Wolfgang’s was a CD identity that I “probably” did not create, you lied.

You have lied about me and my CD identity for years. You have lied repeatedly. You have lied pathologically. In every one of the 19 posts you have created since August 9 of this year in which you referenced, insinuated, or blatantly claimed I created such aliases...

Aug 9 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7354/#Comment_7354
Aug 12 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7471/#Comment_7471
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7478/#Comment_7478
Aug 13 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7534/#Comment_7534
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7539/#Comment_7539
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7546/#Comment_7546
Aug 14 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7559/#Comment_7559
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7576/#Comment_7576
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7592/#Comment_7592
Aug 15 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7611/#Comment_7611
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7598/#Comment_7598
Aug 16 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7618/#Comment_7618
Aug 18 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7657/#Comment_7657
Aug 23 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/7807/#Comment_7807
Sep 7 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/8124/#Comment_8124
Sep 10 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/8259/#Comment_8259
Sep 13 - https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/8432/#Comment_8432
https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/8385/#Comment_8385
Sep 14 - https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/8482/#Comment_8482

... you lied.

You didn’t make mistakes. You didn’t accidentally overstate truth. You didn’t misinterpret observations. You lied... again and again and again and again.

The multi-year lifespan of your lies about my CD identities is awkwardly reminiscent of Donald Trump’s years-long lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace. For years, Mr. Trump repeated, always without evidence, the lie that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. The fact that he had no evidence - because there WAS none - never hindered Mr. Trump. Again and again and again he lied about the president’s homeland. Then, months after he offered a 30 second end-of-campaign reversal of his tin foil hat conspiracy theory, news media reported President Trump’s continuing skepticism about his predecessor’s birthplace.

In your case, you lied repeatedly about my CD identity during the previous edition of these forums, took a break as this version took root, and have now resumed, not with private skepticism, but open and blatant trumpeting of your lie.

What this means, Gao Lu, is that you are liar. As a person who sings is a singer, and a person who teaches is a teacher, you - a person who lies - are a liar.

NOT about your disagreement with me about the deity of Christ. Your theological views are your views.

NOT about your disagreement with me regarding Donald Trump’s leadership. Your political views are your views.

NOT about ANYTHING other than your statements and insinuations about my CD identity.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a debatable matter. This is not an "agree to disagree" moment. There is no doubt about the truth of my claims regarding your conduct in this matter. Of course, over the years you have CLAIMED and INSINUATED the existence of truth in your claims about my alleged “aliases.” But what you have never done - because you couldn’t, because it doesn’t exist - is offer proof. I’ve asked. I’ve demanded. You’ve always declined... because you had to, because your claim is a lie.

If the CD forums are to implement fully the content and intent of its “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation, you will have stop lying about me, Gao Lu.

Now what about my role in the decline of these forums? What about all those people who left? Because none of them is here to speak for him- or herself, I will not comment on their actions or motives other than to say that regarding their participation in CD forums, I assume they took the actions they believed were in their best interests.

I stand behind my posts, then as well as now. Words have always mattered to me. The “criticize ideas, not people” expectation has always mattered to me. Though I am far from a perfect poster, I would not change the basic direction or spirit of my CD posts in this or the previous edition of these forums.

I write well. I express myself and make my arguments clearly and with conviction. My high school debate coach pounded into our heads that if we made an assertion of fact, we’d better be able to back it up. That’s why I provide links to sources that support so many of my claims. What I do NOT do is attack people. I do not call people names. You will search my posts in vain in search of violations of the “criticize ideas, not people” expectation (except this post, of course! More to come about that) I am a tough debate opponent, but that’s NEVER because I fight unfairly. It’s ALWAYS because I know what I believe and I know how to present it and contend with opposing views.

Bottom line: I do not accept responsibility for the choices others have made about their involvement in these forums.

And finally a few comments about your post which prompted me to write this one:

@GaoLu said:
As long as you are present on this forum, either you or Bill or various aliases, this forum will likely never grow or mature into anything of interest to a community greater than yourself. It will remain a place where Christ and God are mocked by fake Christian platitudes, a place where politics overpowers reason, a place to celebrate filth in the name of Christianity. If there was a hint of sincerity in all that, then perhaps the conversations would be worthwhile. I detect none coming from your quarters. The mockery of Christianity is nauseating,

If you don’t like what others post, defeat their arguments with logic, reason, facts, the power of God, and the authority of faith. Sadly, instead, as your paragraph demonstrates, you choose to seek the defeat, not of the ideas of which you disapprove, but of the people to whom those ideas belong.

Until something changes, we will not win more interest unless we win only others of your ilk or unless you, Bill, or whoever creates even more personas, aliases and trolls themselves for personal entertainment.

Or until you stop lying about my alleged personas and aliases.

Unfortunately, very few people who are real and sincere have stuck it out. Over a couple years, we lost many Logos users--some very capable and good contributors. We lost Eric and Ellyn, we lost Lu and David and several others. Brian, who is a wealth of knowledge, rarely comes out of the woodwork these days. Even Dave hardly speaks up nowadays. We lost a lot of great contributors--all because of trolling by people like you (many of these people have specifically said so). Some of these have migrated to other forums. Even though we had a wide range of differences and practices, some of us became friends--we still keep in periodic contact, one of them opened his own forum, we have talked on the phone, shared burdens, prayed together.

It sounds as if you have found safe shelter from what you consider the destructive influences of these forums.

Every forum has a few fruitcakes. Some, we embrace kindly and absorb their presence with grace. We have had our share of fruitcakes, and we have lost a lot of fruitcakes--many of which appeared to be multiple aliases and personas mocking certain personality types--all invented by one sick person for sport. Such aliases are a lot of work to maintain, so they slip away. But not all fruitcakes are not necessarily trolls. Trolling is a special kind of fruitcake and trolls sometimes take down forums. I suppose that is really fun for trolls and the ultimate reward.

Again with the aliases and personas.

Presently the value of these forums would be primarily for some social science or psych undergrad to use to poke wierdos with verbal sticks to be secretly amused by their responses. That is very effective. I regret that I have done that sometimes.

What you have ALSO done “sometimes” is troll. Remember THIS CONFESSION OF YOURS (emphasis added) from March?

“Trolling is fun for some kinds of people but fogs up a positive dialog with drivel. I guess that is why some people do it. Probably I have been guilty of it sometimes. Emotional poking for a response. It's fun when I do it, even productive and justifiable, and trolling when the other guy does it.”

Your claims that I or others troll, more often than not in my view, have been confessions of your own sin.

I do appreciate Reformed and Wolfgang and Jan. I have no idea why they stick around. Or why I have. Perhaps for the reasons I listed above, in hopes that one day this could amount to something useful.

Given your angst and unrest over me AND my aliases and fake Christian platitudes, why do YOU “stick around”?

Could you change? Maybe. Very unlikely, but maybe. I don't think I will wait for that. Unless something changes soon, I will go as well and eventually that one person can troll themselves with countless aliases to their heart's content and I suppose it won't cost anyone much to allow that to happen. Now and then someone may stumble over the site and stop by to gawk at the mess. Maybe.

Regarding your future in these forums, I think you should do what you believe is in your best interests. But as long as you post in these forums, I believe you should comply fully with the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation, and you should stop lying about my CD identity.

I am very grateful to Jan for providing this forum and for his contributions. I and a couple other former CD contributors live away from American culture, largely isolated from Christians or English speaking people. A forum provides a lot of blessing for us. A chance to think in English, to interface with mature Christians, to have ideas challenged, to hear ideas that make us dig. That has occurred a few times here when engaging with mature, thinking people. Forums provide a place to think, meditate, grow, worship, touch and be touched by Godly people, especially when we swell in dark corners of the earth. Trolling has pretty much removed any such benefit from this forum. So it is.

Given what you believe is trolling’s destructive impact, why do you find it “fun,” “productive,” and “justifiable” when you do it? (See post quoted earlier)

I suggest that those of us with any continuing interest get our heads together to see if the forum is worth salvaging and if so, how to do so. Yes, I expect the trolls to smear this request into oblivion. Is it worth the effort to take the forums back? I can't do it alone. I will watch.

No, but you CAN comport with the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation on your own, and you CAN stop lying about my CD identity without anyone’s assistance.

One final thought: Haven’t I violated the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation throughout this lengthy post? Yes. I don’t excuse my violation, but I do explain it... this way: I have been the subject of more ad hominem attacks in these forums and those of the previous version of CD than ANYONE, by far (how many times has another poster questioned whether YOU’RE actually a Christian?). My goodness, I've endured 23 posts just in the last six weeks alone from Gao Lu and reformed on their tin foil hat “alias” conspiracy theory! Again and again and again I have not returned the fire. I consider this post my singular chance to cast my vision for these forums and to hold Gao Lu accountable for his continuing lies. That have I done.

I love how in your diatribe about criticizing ideas and not people you criticize @GaoLu and to top it you enaged in NAME CALLING in a thread about not doing such.

Typical.

reformed · September 2018

For the record, I have sent an apology to @Wolfgang

Just FYI

C Mc · January 2021

Thinking out loud:
We have come so fall and yet, no where in the end. Let's put forth greater efforts to move forward, definitely, in 2021. CM

PS. Who, in these forums, can best model the chart, below, in our exchanges?

C Mc · February 2021

CD Posters,

The words of an undisciplined child have arisen in CD again. They are unfortunately from the pen of a "declared adult". How can we help him or what can we do? Any suggestions? CM

reformed · February 2021

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/17530#Comment_17530

I'd rather be honest about my views than passive aggressive and delusional like you.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus · February 2021

Is the idea of Name-calling really proper for one who truly Loves יהוה First ? What does Name-calling really reflect about what ideas are really, really, really most important to the Name-caller ?

Ephesians 5:1-6 (LEB + יהוה) Therefore become imitators of יהוה God, as beloved children, and live in love, just as also יהוה Christ loved us, and gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice to יהוה God for a fragrant smell. But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or greediness, must not even be named among you (as is fitting for saints), and obscenity, and foolish talk, or coarse jesting (which are not proper), but rather thanksgiving. For this you know for certain, that every sexually immoral person, or unclean person, or greedy person (who is an idolater), does not have an inheritance in the kingdom of יהוה Christ and יהוה God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of יהוה God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Hurting people hurt people. Healed people heal people.

Broken people break people. Loving people love people.

Numb people numb people. Thankful people thank people.

Old adage "Sticks & Stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." is a self deceiving lie (as all hearers & readers of name-calling are hurt, especially the one using foolish talk to hurt self first followed by hurting others. 😪Saddened by numerous politically motivated words being empty, lacking Holy Righteous Love of יהוה

🙏Praying to speak & write יהוה Truth in Love using Kind words, knowing human anger does not accomplish Holy, Righteous, Loving will of יהוה. Thankful for sad reminders of my foolish empty word usage many years ago (sometimes LOUDLY YELLING at my best human friend while deceiving myself about the "honesty" of my own words: thought I was YELLING TRUTH, but was truly lacking יהוה Love). Thankful for יהוה sending vision to a relative when my eyes were full of tears 😪after my best friend's human tent transition to יהוה Holy Heaven plus sympathy surprise showing יהוה Loving touch. After agreeing with יהוה about my selfish, sinful actions, Thankful for יהוה forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness so the Joy of יהוה is now my strength. Thankful to see nature showing Glory of יהוה. Thankful for Loving changes to become Holy as יהוה is Holy: putting off my old selfish ways (still wanting to rid myself of a few selfish habits chosen many years ago: comfortably ingrained) with intense desire to now become Holy as יהוה wants me to be that pleases יהוה 🙏 Thankful for Holy presence of יהוה that includes 🙏praying lovingly for many people (includes CD posters plus politicians, prisoners, יהוה believers, ...) Thankful can look at the face of each human person to see the Image of God 😍 You're Special 😍 יהוה Loves You 😍Does יהוה like our sin ? No. יהוה Loves Us 😍

Keep Smiling 😊

[Deleted User] · February 2021

Jesus said this about some people:

Mt 23:27 (AV)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

Paul said this to someone

Acts 23:3 (AV)

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ?

Examples of unacceptable name calling? If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

Jesus said this about some people: Mt 23:27 (AV)....

Paul said this to someone: Acts 23:3 (AV)....

Examples of unacceptable name calling? If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

What form(s) of name-calling from and about CD posters do you propose that these texts justify, Wolfgang?

Do they justify calling another CD poster "a piece of scum," for example?
Do they justify calling a fellow forum participant an "idiot" or "moron"?
How about classifying a fellow poster as "deranged" or "delusional"?

Please help us understand the CD forums-specific application of Jesus' words you had in mind as you chose to include them in your post. How do you suggest these texts help us decide what's appropriate and inappropriate "name-calling" among CD community members?

[Deleted User] · February 2021

What form(s) of name-calling from and about CD posters do you propose that these texts justify, Wolfgang?

My post was about "name-calling" found in two scripture passages. And I asked if these were examples of unacceptable name calling? and furthermore, If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

My post was about "name-calling" found in two scripture passages. And I asked if these were examples of unacceptable name calling? and furthermore, If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

But you posted your post in a thread whose central thrust, from its creation in September 2018 to the present, has been about the names CD posters call each other, and whose January 27 post reminded us of a pyramid of argumentation strategies at the bottom of which lay name-calling, something CD administrator Jan described as "the lowest form of argumentative strategy." In response to such a thread, you posted two Scripture texts and asked whether they contained "examples of unacceptable name-calling." So my question remains: Given the subject matter of this thread, what assistance do you believe the texts you quoted offer as CD members decide what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate "name-calling" in their posts?

[Deleted User] · February 2021

So my question remains: Given the subject matter of this thread, what assistance do you believe the texts you quoted offer as CD members decide what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate "name-calling" in their posts?

I would think that biblical samples, such as consideration of the two scripture passages mentioned might provide very good assistance to evaluate current situations such as those raised in this thread.

Thus my questions in relation to those questions: Are these examples of unacceptable name calling? and furthermore, If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

Thus far, no one here as addressed my questions ....

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

I would think that biblical samples, such as consideration of the two scripture passages mentioned might provide very good assistance to evaluate current situations such as those raised in this thread.

I'm not asking whether you think the texts might provide "very good assistance," Wolfgang. I'm asking what you think that "very good assistance" is. So to ask my question yet another way: Please tell us what lessons you think CD posters should take from the two texts you cited as they decide what's appropriate and inappropriate name-calling.

Thus my questions in relation to those questions: Are these examples of unacceptable name calling? and furthermore, If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

Though I am not inclined to use it or others like it, in my view a "name" such as "hypocrite" can be acceptable because it is descriptive of a specific conduct, in the same way that "thief" can be an acceptable "name" for someone who steals, or "liar" for someone who lies. The necessary prerequisite for each of those to be acceptable "names," of course, is that they be both accurate - that is, grounded in objective truth - and affected by grace and mercy. For example, I don't call people liars after the first or second times they lie to me. People make mistakes. But someone who lies repeatedly, as did Donald Trump, for example, deserves the "name" because his actions verified it as true.

What's NOT acceptable are dismissive, judgmental, personal attacks against people - "names" such as "piece of scum," "moron," "idiot," "stupid," "deranged," etc.

A bit more on my personal practice: I much prefer to say "What you just said is false" rather than "You're a liar" because "liar" focuses on the person rather than the person's actions. When I say "What you just said..." I'm clearly focusing on what the person said. When I say "You are a..." I'm clearly focusing on the person taking the actions. CD expectations are that we will criticize ideas and actions, NOT the people who have those ideas or take those actions.

[Deleted User] · February 2021

I'm not asking whether you think the texts might provide "very good assistance," Wolfgang. I'm asking what you think that "very good assistance" is. So to ask my question yet another way: Please tell us what lessons you think CD posters should take from the two texts you cited as they decide what's appropriate and inappropriate name-calling.

I asked my questions first .... when these are answered, your questions may well be answered right along with it.

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

I asked my questions first .... when these are answered, your questions may well be answered right along with it.

I answered your questions in my previous post when I said names such as "hypocrite," "thief," and "liar," if both objectively accurate and affected by grace and mercy, can be acceptable because they describe specific conduct. In my view, hypocrisy is the central theme of the two texts you cited, and therefore my answer stands.

Now that I have revisited my answers to your questions, please address mine: Please tell us what lessons you think CD posters should take from the two texts you cited as they decide what's appropriate and inappropriate name-calling.

[Deleted User] · February 2021

I answered your questions in my previous post when I said names such as "hypocrite," "thief," and "liar," if both objectively accurate and affected by grace and mercy, can be acceptable

You answered your question ... so then if someone's claim about another person being something is accurate (for example, a position or idea they propagate is that of a "loony"; calling it that would be accurate and acceptable. Calling a spade a spade is inappropriate just because a person claims it is hearts???

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

You answered your question ... so then if someone's claim about another person being something is accurate (for example, a position or idea they propagate is that of a "loony"; calling it that would be accurate and acceptable. Calling a spade a spade is inappropriate just because a person claims it is hearts???

It's amazing to me how unwilling you are to answer questions, Wolfgang (though in this case, I must acknowledge the improvement in your approach to others' inquiries).

Over our years together in these forums, your most frequent tactic has been simply not even to mention the questions I put to you, as if to hope that by refusing to acknowledge their existence, I won't notice your evasion of them. In this present case, however, you've actually referenced the question I asked, so thanks. You didn't answer it, of course - and in this post I'll ask you that question for a fifth time(!) - but it's progress that you acknowledged the question's existence.

YOUR questions were, "Examples of unacceptable name calling? If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?" My answer was that hypocrisy is the central theme of the two texts you cited, and that if grounded in objective truth and affected by grace and mercy, "hypocrite" can be an acceptable "name." In the particular case of Jesus' use of the word, I believe his use of it met the criteria I proposed, and hence, those were NOT "examples of unacceptable name-calling." So my answer to your first question is "no."

As for why "some folks" believe those to be "harsh words," I can't speak for them, so my answer to your second question is "I don't know because I don't know the 'some folks' to whom you're referring."

Your latest question is "...if someone's claim about another person being something is accurate (for example, a position or idea they propagate is that of a 'loony'; calling it that would be accurate and acceptable. Calling a spade a spade is inappropriate just because a person claims it is hearts???" My answer is...

Your question begins with a reference to a claim "about another person being something," but then in its parenthetical example refers to "a position or idea." In my view, those references are very different from each other, and hence must be addressed separately.
CD guidelines (as well as common courtesy, respect, and decency) permit commentary about positions and ideas, but not about the persons who state them. So as a general rule, a claim "about another person being" "loony" would not be acceptable because it would be a claim about a person, not about a person's positions or ideas.
A claim that a position or an idea is "loony" satisfies the CD guidelines, but in my view, reflects unhelpful commentary. More helpful would be a critique that identified the idea's factual and/or logical weaknesses. Simply calling an idea "loony" doesn't advance the discussion, and to me comes across as harsh, undeveloped criticism.
"Calling a spade a spade"? Recall that we're talking about name-calling in this thread, so if your question is meant to be on-topic, it asks whether it's appropriate to call a person by a given name if another person believes that name is not accurate. My answer has been and remains that the names we give to other people can be appropriate IF those names accurately describe conduct (e.g. "thief" about one who steals, and "hypocrite" about one who actually is one). Names that comment on people (e.g. "idiot," "moron," "piece of scum") are not appropriate because they are about the person, not about the person's conduct.
In general, as I have stated previously, I try to limit my comments to conduct and ideas. Name-calling, in my view, is too simplistic and generalized, and subject to serious error and unnecessary harm. More often than not, it shuts down communication, which usually is not the best outcome.

Those are my direct responses to your questions, Wolfgang. You might not agree or like any of them, but they ARE my responses. NOW please address my question directly. No more evasion: Please tell us what lessons you think CD posters should take from the two texts you cited as they decide what's appropriate and inappropriate name-calling.

[Deleted User] · February 2021

Please tell us what lessons you think CD posters should take from the two texts you cited as they decide what's appropriate and inappropriate name-calling.

The biblical lessons should be clear: there are obviously instances where people are called names and such doing is not condemned if what is said is accurate. If one determines to call someone names one better be accurate in doing so ....

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

The biblical lessons should be clear: there are obviously instances where people are called names and such doing is not condemned if what is said is accurate. If one determines to call someone names one better be accurate in doing so ....

Though it's hard to fathom why I had to ask the question five times before you offered these three sentences, I'm grateful to receive them. Turns out our views share a lot of common ground.

I'm curious as to one other possible area of common ground: Do you agree with me that "names" such as "idiot," "moron," and "piece of scum" when used in accusations of the form "You are a|an...." are inappropriate because they are about the person, not the person's ideas or conduct?

reformed · February 2021

https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/17549#Comment_17549

Moron: A foolish or stupid person. Yep, that's appropriate if true.

Idiot: A stupid person. See above.

Scum: a worthless or contemptible person or group of people. Yep, if true.

[Deleted User] · February 2021

I'm curious as to one other possible area of common ground: Do you agree with me that "names" such as "idiot," "moron," and "piece of scum" when used in accusations of the form "You are a|an...." are inappropriate because they are about the person, not the person's ideas or conduct?

What do the two passages tell us concerning this aspect? What would be accurate and true? If I seriously behave in a stupid manner, propagate stupidity, am I a smart and wise fellow or rather "a stupid dude"? Why should someone not call me what would be accurate and instead perhaps hypocritically call me something different, thereby making himself out to be some name?

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus · February 2021

@Wolfgang Jesus said this about some people:

Mt 23:27 (AV)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

Matthew 23:27-28 (LEB) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees—hypocrites!—because you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean! In the same way, on the outside you also appear righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Jesus spoke truthful words from יהוה Father to lovingly do the Holy Righteous will of יהוה Father so can imagine words spoken in a loving, gentle manner as יהוה desires every human to choose loving יהוה first, but those who choose not to love יהוה first (so choose not to do the will of יהוה) will be eternally separated from יהוה Holy Love (c.f. Matthew 7:21-23, Hebrews 3:7-19, Jude 5).

@Wolfgang Paul said this to someone

Acts 23:3 (AV)

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ?

Acts 23:1-5 (LEB) And looking intently at the Sanhedrin, Paul said, “Men and brothers, I have lived my life in all good conscience before God to this day.” So the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike his mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And are you sitting there judging me according to the law, and acting contrary to the law do you order me to be struck?” And those who stood nearby said, “Are you reviling the high priest of God?” And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was high priest. For it is written, ‘You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ”

Considering intensity of Jewish cultural name-calling, Paul's words are tame while being truthful plus Paul's manner of gentle speaking, which would be without human anger/harshness in a loving way like Jesus. Personally puzzled by many years of Scripture study resulted in a number of "Jewish Sanhedrin members" who fervently believed יהוה claims by Jesus ('name-calling' identification) cursed יהוה so Jesus deserved to die as stated in John 19:7 (Leviticus 24:10-23 law)

@Wolfgang Examples of unacceptable name calling?

No for יהוה Truth spoken in Love (Ephesians 4:11-16 penned by Paul).

@Wolfgang If not, what makes these harsh words for some folks acceptable?

Matthew 10:16-20 includes יהוה Truth spoken in Love for יהוה believers (יהוה words given at the right time, yet יהוה believers may be put to death)

For me, Proverbs 25:20 (LEB) Like one who removes a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar on natron, is he who sings songs to a heavy heart. has application as a heavy heart (anger inflicted into self in a variety of ways) does not want to receive Love, Joy, Peace, ... from יהוה Truth in Love (so words truly spoken/written in יהוה Love feels like an icy snowball thrown hard at one with a heavy heart who is wearing little => stings a lot, as does vinegar (or antiseptic) poured on an open wound to cleanse (hurts so can help wound to heal). Thankful for יהוה being the One who convicts of sin against יהוה so my intense desire is to be Holy as יהוה is Holy, speaking/writing יהוה Truth in Love.

@Bill_Coley A bit more on my personal practice: I much prefer to say "What you just said is false" rather than "You're a liar" because "liar" focuses on the person rather than the person's actions. When I say "What you just said..." I'm clearly focusing on what the person said. When I say "You are a..." I'm clearly focusing on the person taking the actions. CD expectations are that we will criticize ideas and actions, NOT the people who have those ideas or take those actions.

Genesis 1:26-27 (LEB) And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image and according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him, male and female he created them.

Wonder what words Holy יהוה Father would use to truthfully describe executive order action signed by President Biden on 20 January 2021 that includes "Section 2. Enforcing Prohibitions on Sex Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Identity or Sexual Orientation" ?

@Bill_Coley (in a reply to @Wolfgang) I'm curious as to one other possible area of common ground: Do you agree with me that "names" such as "idiot," "moron," and "piece of scum" when used in accusations of the form "You are a|an...." are inappropriate because they are about the person, not the person's ideas or conduct?

@reformed Moron: A foolish or stupid person. Yep, that's appropriate if true.

@reformed Idiot: A stupid person. See above.

@reformed Scum: a worthless or contemptible person or group of people. Yep, if true.

Does the idea of "names" such as "idiot," "moron," and "piece of scum" describe various specks in eyes ? identify idea(s) in caller & recipient(s) ?

Matthew 7:1-5 (LEB) “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by what measure you measure out, it will be measured out to you. And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!

@Wolfgang What do the two passages tell us concerning this aspect? What would be accurate and true?

Holy יהוה knows Truth of Righteous word applicability (includes inside motivation of human being).

@Wolfgang If I seriously behave in a stupid manner, propagate stupidity, am I a smart and wise fellow or rather "a stupid dude"?

Humanly difficult question to answer as a number of very intelligent people are locked up inside prisons for doing stupid stuff (some quite intentionally used many manipulative ways, including deceiving appearances). Yet a number of wealthy politicians are not in prison despite doing incredibly stupid stuff (sad for human miscarriages of Justice, which is not Right in the sight of Holy יהוה).

@Wolfgang Why should someone not call me what would be accurate and instead perhaps hypocritically call me something different, thereby making himself out to be some name?

Jeremiah 17:5-11 (LEB) Thus says יהוה Yahweh, “Cursed is the person who trusts in humankind and makes flesh his strength, and turns aside his heart from יהוה Yahweh. And he will be like a juniper in the wilderness, and he will not see when good comes, and he will dwell in the parched places in the desert, in a land of salt flats, where no one lives. Blessed be the person who trusts in יהוה Yahweh, and יהוה Yahweh is his trust. For he will be like a tree planted by water, and to the stream it sends its roots, and it will not fear when heat comes, and its leaves will be luxuriant, and in the year of drought it will not be anxious, and it will not cease from the bearing of fruit. The heart is deceitful more than anything else, and it is disastrous. Who can understand it? I, יהוה Yahweh, examine the mind, I test the heart, and give to each one according to his way, according to the fruit of his deeds. Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay is one who amasses wealth without justice. In the middle of his days it will leave him, and at his end he will prove to be a fool.”

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

What do the two passages tell us concerning this aspect?

The two passages don't tell us much, in my view, because both include conduct-based "name-calling," the core conduct being hypocrisy. At their cores, terms such as "idiot" and "moron" are about personal dismissal and diminishment far more than about personal conduct.

What's the more direct, conduct-based, Christ-centered approach to critiquing another's conduct?

"I think you made a foolish mistake when you did XYZ because...."
"You're an idiot."

Speaking of Bible texts, what do you think Jesus meant to tell us about name-calling when he said this in the Sermon on the Mount?

21 “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. (Matthew 5.21-22, NLT; ESV: "whoever says, 'you fool!'" rather than "call someone an idiot")

If I seriously behave in a stupid manner, propagate stupidity, am I a smart and wise fellow or rather "a stupid dude"? Why should someone not call me what would be accurate and instead perhaps hypocritically call me something different, thereby making himself out to be some name?

If I think you behaved in a "stupid manner," then I tell you that I think you behaved in a stupid manner; I don't call you a "stupid dude." If I comment on your behavior rather than your character, my comments are all but guaranteed to be more precise and accurate. After all, even "smart dudes" can on occasion act in a "stupid manner."

Again, we have a choice as to how we refer to people who make mistakes, or who, in our eyes, are imperfect: We can say they are people who made mistakes (or are wrong in their views, or are taking bad risks, or....) and specify the reasons for our beliefs, or we can say they're "morons." In my view, the choice is obvious.

And then there's the CD-specific manifestation of this issue. In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," dismissive names such as "idiot" and "moron" are simply not appropriate.

Finally, I'll ask you the question I asked @reformed. He won't answer, but perhaps you will: What did your parents, teachers, pastors, and Sunday school instructors tell you about name-calling in your youth? Did they approve of calling people names as Christ-like behavior, or did they believe there were more faithful ways to refer to critique others? All of those people in my youth made it VERY clear to me that name-calling was wrong. Perhaps you received a different message?

[Deleted User] · February 2021

Finally, I'll ask you the question I asked @reformed. He won't answer, but perhaps you will: What did your parents, teachers, pastors, and Sunday school instructors tell you about name-calling in your youth?

They all taught me not to make false accusations thereby insulting another person. They also told me that I was stupid, when I was stupid (and acted / behaved as such ... and wise when I was wise and behaved as such.

Did they approve of calling people names as Christ-like behavior, or did they believe there were more faithful ways to refer to critique others? All of those people in my youth made it VERY clear to me that name-calling was wrong. Perhaps you received a different message?

See above ... underlying their actions was the principle of being honest instead of hypocritical, truthful rather than falsely accusing and telling and calling people as they were. A liar was "a liar" and not "a nice guy whose words were mistaken".

Also note, just because they called me a "stupid idiot" one day due to my actions and behavior, did not mean that I was a permanent "stupid idiot" for life .... with changed actions and behavior on my part, they changed what they called me. 😉

reformed · February 2021

https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/17553#Comment_17553

They taught me to be honest.

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

They all taught me not to make false accusations thereby insulting another person. They also told me that I was stupid, when I was stupid (and acted / behaved as such ... and wise when I was wise and behaved as such....

See above ... underlying their actions was the principle of being honest instead of hypocritical, truthful rather than falsely accusing and telling and calling people as they were. A liar was "a liar" and not "a nice guy whose words were mistaken".

You and I had very different influences and teaching in the faith from our parents, pastors, and Sunday school instructors. I'm guessing that we're both quite pleased to have been influenced and taught the way we were.

@reformed posted:

They taught me to be honest.

Because both you and @Wolfgang were taught to be "honest," we find some common ground. What did your parents, pastors, et al teach you it meant to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4.15)? I assume they must have taught you that calling people "stupid idiots," "morons," and "pieces of scum" were loving ways to speak the truth, which begs the question, what did they teach you would be unloving ways to speak the truth to someone?

@Wolfgang posted:

Also note, just because they called me a "stupid idiot" one day due to my actions and behavior, did not mean that I was a permanent "stupid idiot" for life .... with changed actions and behavior on my part, they changed what they called me.

Your response here reveals another difference in our early influences. The message my siblings and I received was that being an "idiot" was a character flaw, and hence not subject to daily or otherwise commonplace transformation. Hence, for us, to call someone an "idiot" was to cast judgment on his or her character, which we were taught not to do (Matthew 7.1). That didn't mean we didn't do it!! But we were taught not to, and in my adulthood I returned to the wisdom and biblical imperative of that teaching.

And finally, to both of you I raise the issue of the CD forums-specific application of Jesus' teachings and ask that you each respond directly to this question: What is the place of calling people "idiots," "morons," and "pieces of sum" in forums whose explicit expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people"? Do you believe that to call a fellow poster an "idiot," a "moron," or "a piece of scum" is to criticize ideas or a person?

[Deleted User] · February 2021

I assume they must have taught you that calling people "stupid idiots," "morons," and "pieces of scum" were loving ways to speak the truth, which begs the question, what did they teach you would be unloving ways to speak the truth to someone?

The loving way is to tell the truth ... the unloving ways would be to not tell the truth and hypocritically be "polite" but leave a person with the impression that one is approving / condoning their "idiot stupid" doings as acceptable.

Was jesus not loving by telling the fellows there that they were hypocrites, and even emphasizing that point by calling them "whited sepulchers" ?? What would have been an unloving way of telling them that truth??

Do you believe that to call a fellow poster an "idiot," a "moron," or "a piece of scum" is to criticize ideas or a person?

The ideas propagated portray and display the person .... If someone calls my ideas "idiotic and stupid" then they are in fact calling me "idiot and stupid", because my words are mine, come from me, show my character, my personality, etc. Or were my "idiotic and stupid" ideas actually the words of a different person / split personality of "me"?

Bill_Coley · February 2021

@Wolfgang posted:

The loving way is to tell the truth ... the unloving ways would be to not tell the truth and hypocritically be "polite" but leave a person with the impression that one is approving / condoning their "idiot stupid" doings as acceptable.

I agree that truth-telling is often "the loving way," but I didn't ask you to identify "the loving way." I asked you to identify unloving ways to speak the truth, something I view as a counterpoint to the Ephesians 4 text's call to "speak the truth in love." Are you arguing that the writer of Ephesians is redundant when he asks us to speak the truth in love as we grow into Christ, that there is no such thing as an unloving way to speak the truth?

To say to someone, "I think you're making a big mistake by doing XYZ" (rather than, "You're such an idiot!") is NOT to approve or condone the person's doing XYZ. Rather, it's to comment very specifically about the mistake doing XYZ was. "You're an idiot!" comments generally about a person's character, intelligence, common sense, etc, and not about specific mistakes. Comments that target conduct rather than character are more accurate and helpful, as well as more loving.

Was jesus not loving by telling the fellows there that they were hypocrites, and even emphasizing that point by calling them "whited sepulchers" ?? What would have been an unloving way of telling them that truth??

First, I'm not Jesus, which places my commentary on the outside looking in.

Second, Jesus' cited critique of the Pharisees comes late in his ministry, near the end of his earthly life, which suggests to me that in the years prior to his "hypocrites" critique, Jesus had several run-ins with the group that served to shape and intensify his response to them.

Third, as I have noted previously, comments grounded in conduct rather than character - in this case, a "hypocrite" is one who practices hypocrisy - are FAR superior to comments grounded in character rather than conduct (for example, "You're a piece of scum.").

The ideas propagated portray and display the person .... If someone calls my ideas "idiotic and stupid" then they are in fact calling me "idiot and stupid", because my words are mine, come from me, show my character, my personality, etc. Or were my "idiotic and stupid" ideas actually the words of a different person / split personality of "me"?

What possible ideas could someone "propagate" in order the "portray and display" his or her being a "piece of scum"?

In my first year in seminary, nearly 40 years ago, I learned about the magnificent term "disidentification," which basically means that as persons we are separate and distinct from our bodies, minds, and conduct.

I make mistakes, but I am not a mistake.
I have physical limitations, but I am not a physical limitation.
I come up with both good and bad ideas, but I am neither a good nor a bad idea.
I am a child of God, the person who makes mistakes, has a body, and comes up with ideas.

"I am a person who...", a simple rhetorical phrase that changed my life for good and forever. So no, when I call your point of view a mistake, I am very definitely NOT calling YOU are a mistake. I am calling your point of view a mistake. You are a child of God, and that is not a mistake.

Two posts ago I asked you to comment on a Matthew 5 text. You haven't responded to it yet, so here's the request again:

Speaking of Bible texts, what do you think Jesus meant to tell us about name-calling when he said this in the Sermon on the Mount?

21 “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. (Matthew 5.21-22, NLT; ESV: "whoever says, 'you fool!'" rather than "call someone an idiot")

[Deleted User] · February 2021

I agree that truth-telling is often "the loving way," but I didn't ask you to identify "the loving way." I asked you to identify unloving ways to speak the truth, something I view as a counterpoint to the Ephesians 4 text's call to "speak the truth in love." Are you arguing that the writer of Ephesians is redundant when he asks us to speak the truth in love as we grow into Christ, that there is no such thing as an unloving way to speak the truth?

I see no unloving way in telling the truth. DO you want to argue Jesus' very emphatic name calling was unloving because he did not speak the truth in love ???

By the way, the expression "speaking the truth" in Eph 4:15, from the context is rather "being truthful" ("a truthful conduct", => "being honest"!), as also NASB 95 mentions in a note ("or holding to or being truthful in" (also found in Luther 2017, 1984, 1912, 1545 - translating "let us be truthful, honest, upright in love"!)

Being dishonest, not upright are manifestations of not walking in love. Being honest, truthful, upright in both word and deed is walking in love. If I "behave in a situation as a stupid idiot", I actually "am in that situation a stupid idiot" and truthfully may be called that ... very simple. If someone points out that truth in either of those expressions, they are truthful and would be walking in love.

Trying "to be nice" or "not so harsh" or "not so direct" is irrelevant, and actually may be more harmful if it doesn't truthfully point out what is actually the case.

Name-calling

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0