My wife found your blog after reading your newspaper letter. I read many of your posts. You recite the wrongs of name calling, yet you do it yourself. I think you may drive people away from the very faith you write about. To specifically name a person and show their photo saying they are foolish, shows you are the hypocrite you so frequently write about.
Webster's online defines foolish as this :1)lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion and 2) absurd, ridiculous.
I don't think my judgement is too far off. I would assert that there is a difference between making a judgement and simply calling someone a name, though maybe I should have simply said she looked foolish. So, perhaps I was wrong.
However, if we are no longer allowed to make judgements of any kind, do we simply accept all kinds of behavior or ideas as normal and good? I don't think so, but perhaps you can offer a better alternative.
I highly doubt my calling Lady Gaga foolish is going to drive folks away from the faith. Thankfully, it is through the power of what Christ did on the cross that saves folks and not my poor behavior.
Of course, that does not give me license to act however I like, but neither does it give folks an excuse to deny the Gospel of Christ. I don't think God's gonna buy the excuse that "well, that one Christian called someone a name."
Even if I were a hypocrite (and I would suggest that nearly anyone who has any standards that he or she breaks could be lumped in), I am not sure what that means, other than it is a good thing I have a Savior who died for me to forgive me of my sins.
Maybe that is why many folks have no standards- they don't want to be labeled a hypocrite. I have never made the claim that I am perfect and got it all right- far from it.
I would rather have standards I try to live for and risk being called a hypocrite when I fail than to have low standards that I don't have to worry about messing up.
Thanks for sharing. Any reason you don't add your name?
Your letter is the Victorville newspaper letter, recent. Name calling was focus of your letter. Scanning your archives, there are dozens of refrences to things not scriptural, yet painfully the opinion of Derrick Bright who quotes scripture to attest to his own opinion. Why do you mock people who look different? Has Lady Gaga said something about you? Shame on you. This blog is a self-centered joke. Goodbye.
There are a few things I'd like to briefly address.
1) You have not told me your name. Anything I have written, I stand by. I may be wrong in my views or my positions, but I am willing to attach my name to it. And defend it as necessary.
2) Name calling was not the sole purpose of the letter. And it had to do with how we interact with folks we disagree with, particularly on the big issues of the day.
There is a big difference between making judgements about certain things or people and calling them names within the context of an ongoing discussion about an issue.
I have no problem with you trying to call me a hypocrite; you are making a judgement. You are trying to be descriptive with what you perceive. That is different than calling names to dismiss in an actual discussion.
I gave you the definition of what foolish was and I think that a celebrity who dresses up in purposefully ridiculous clothes in her attempt at getting attention looks foolish. Don't try to make it about people who simply look different.
3) Of course, there are non-scriptural things on my blog- Part of my statement is this- "A mixture of discussions about God, Christianity, the culture, politics and random silliness."
"Self-centered"? Perhaps, but so what? It is a blog I started and sometimes I'm going to talk about things that interest me using my opinion.
Regarding the quoting of Scripture, sometimes it is appropriate in a blog that is many times about Christianity. You would have to show where I am mistaken in my use of them.
Many times, my opinions are a result of studying the Bible, sometimes it is from my experiences, and sometimes it is from reason. You are free to disagree and if you don't wish to engage in a somewhat reasonable manner, you are free to go elsewhere.
4) Any reason why you are so quickly hostile? I am sure it is not simply because you are defending the honor of Lady Gaga.
And if I am as hypocritical as you think, then it is a good thing that being in relationship with Christ does not depend on my perfection. He is continually working on my heart and life. You should have seen me before Christ.
<<I have no problem with you trying to call me a hypocrite; you are making a judgement. You are trying to be descriptive with what you perceive. That is different than calling names to dismiss in an actual discussion.>>
Well, that is one thing that I was thinking. Surely everybody realizes that name-calling has some place in civil discourse. For example, conventional wisdom in "progressive" societies holds that racists are variably fools and hateful people. So suppose you overhear my saying, "Racists are fools." Now, at this point you may or may not be inclined to see this as an instance of "name-calling." Now suppose that you hear the first sentence along the context from which it came, where the context is this: "Racists are fools. This is something that you yourself taught me, Bill. So why are you now beginning to sound like them if you know better?" In that context, my using the name/noun/word "fool" to denote someone is done strictly as a matter of fact. And no one would disagree that such a thing is just.
Of course, things change if one day you're just walking down the street minding your business, and a Klansman walks up to you and asks, "Will you please take my pamphet entitled 'Why You Should Support Klan Power'?" and you summarily dismiss him with "Fool!" and walk off. Or maybe you tell other passers-by, "Don't listen to them! They're just a bunch of idiots!" In this latter case, "name-calling" is meant to accomplish the likes of silencing discussion or poisoning the well. This goes beyond mere attempts at describing someone.
I actually don't recall any specific condemnation of "name-calling" in the newspaper or in this blog before this thread. But I highly doubt that anyone has ever condemned any sort of name-calling that goes beyond attempts to silence discussion or to vilify an opponent.
8 comments:
name calling? uh huh, I see.
Did you look at the picture? I thought I was behaving. :-) Be sure to leave your name next time.
My wife found your blog after reading your newspaper letter. I read many of your posts. You recite the wrongs of name calling, yet you do it yourself. I think you may drive people away from the very faith you write about. To specifically name a person and show their photo saying they are foolish, shows you are the hypocrite you so frequently write about.
Webster's online defines foolish as this :1)lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion and 2) absurd, ridiculous.
I don't think my judgement is too far off. I would assert that there is a difference between making a judgement and simply calling someone a name, though maybe I should have simply said she looked foolish. So, perhaps I was wrong.
However, if we are no longer allowed to make judgements of any kind, do we simply accept all kinds of behavior or ideas as normal and good? I don't think so, but perhaps you can offer a better alternative.
I highly doubt my calling Lady Gaga foolish is going to drive folks away from the faith. Thankfully, it is through the power of what Christ did on the cross that saves folks and not my poor behavior.
Of course, that does not give me license to act however I like, but neither does it give folks an excuse to deny the Gospel of Christ. I don't think God's gonna buy the excuse that "well, that one Christian called someone a name."
Even if I were a hypocrite (and I would suggest that nearly anyone who has any standards that he or she breaks could be lumped in), I am not sure what that means, other than it is a good thing I have a Savior who died for me to forgive me of my sins.
Maybe that is why many folks have no standards- they don't want to be labeled a hypocrite. I have never made the claim that I am perfect and got it all right- far from it.
I would rather have standards I try to live for and risk being called a hypocrite when I fail than to have low standards that I don't have to worry about messing up.
Thanks for sharing. Any reason you don't add your name?
Hey, do happen to have any particular past newspaper letter in mind that we could discuss?
Your letter is the Victorville newspaper letter, recent. Name calling was focus of your letter. Scanning your archives, there are dozens of refrences to things not scriptural, yet painfully the opinion of Derrick Bright who quotes scripture to attest to his own opinion. Why do you mock people who look different? Has Lady Gaga said something about you? Shame on you. This blog is a self-centered joke. Goodbye.
There are a few things I'd like to briefly address.
1) You have not told me your name. Anything I have written, I stand by. I may be wrong in my views or my positions, but I am willing to attach my name to it. And defend it as necessary.
2) Name calling was not the sole purpose of the letter. And it had to do with how we interact with folks we disagree with, particularly on the big issues of the day.
There is a big difference between making judgements about certain things or people and calling them names within the context of an ongoing discussion about an issue.
I have no problem with you trying to call me a hypocrite; you are making a judgement. You are trying to be descriptive with what you perceive. That is different than calling names to dismiss in an actual discussion.
I gave you the definition of what foolish was and I think that a celebrity who dresses up in purposefully ridiculous clothes in her attempt at getting attention looks foolish. Don't try to make it about people who simply look different.
3) Of course, there are non-scriptural things on my blog- Part of my statement is this- "A mixture of discussions about God, Christianity, the culture, politics and random silliness."
"Self-centered"? Perhaps, but so what? It is a blog I started and sometimes I'm going to talk about things that interest me using my opinion.
Regarding the quoting of Scripture, sometimes it is appropriate in a blog that is many times about Christianity. You would have to show where I am mistaken in my use of them.
Many times, my opinions are a result of studying the Bible, sometimes it is from my experiences, and sometimes it is from reason. You are free to disagree and if you don't wish to engage in a somewhat reasonable manner, you are free to go elsewhere.
4) Any reason why you are so quickly hostile? I am sure it is not simply because you are defending the honor of Lady Gaga.
And if I am as hypocritical as you think, then it is a good thing that being in relationship with Christ does not depend on my perfection. He is continually working on my heart and life. You should have seen me before Christ.
Have a nice day.
<<I have no problem with you trying to call me a hypocrite; you are making a judgement. You are trying to be descriptive with what you perceive. That is different than calling names to dismiss in an actual discussion.>>
Well, that is one thing that I was thinking. Surely everybody realizes that name-calling has some place in civil discourse. For example, conventional wisdom in "progressive" societies holds that racists are variably fools and hateful people. So suppose you overhear my saying, "Racists are fools." Now, at this point you may or may not be inclined to see this as an instance of "name-calling." Now suppose that you hear the first sentence along the context from which it came, where the context is this: "Racists are fools. This is something that you yourself taught me, Bill. So why are you now beginning to sound like them if you know better?" In that context, my using the name/noun/word "fool" to denote someone is done strictly as a matter of fact. And no one would disagree that such a thing is just.
Of course, things change if one day you're just walking down the street minding your business, and a Klansman walks up to you and asks, "Will you please take my pamphet entitled 'Why You Should Support Klan Power'?" and you summarily dismiss him with "Fool!" and walk off. Or maybe you tell other passers-by, "Don't listen to them! They're just a bunch of idiots!" In this latter case, "name-calling" is meant to accomplish the likes of silencing discussion or poisoning the well. This goes beyond mere attempts at describing someone.
I actually don't recall any specific condemnation of "name-calling" in the newspaper or in this blog before this thread. But I highly doubt that anyone has ever condemned any sort of name-calling that goes beyond attempts to silence discussion or to vilify an opponent.
Post a Comment