Does Scripture Endorse Being Derisive?

[Hidden In Him]

We all respond in any discussion, and live life in general, according to the spirit under which we operate as individuals. The natural man is naturally selfish. Thus he will respond defensively. The natural selfish man is naturally predisposed to self preservation. Thus he will respond in a manner which preserves pride, upholds his status, retains ego. And he will go to any lengths to do it. Even to going on the attack to put others down in order to create an impression, even if it is in his own mind only, that he is winning. The selfless man however, will be more inclined to put forth his arguments in a discussion, or provide what he believes will provide for others, regardless of self interest, with other peoples best interests in mind even if it costs themselves status, pride, or reputation. Such folk are always open to discussing matters with an open mind, willing to explain their points without promoting self, allowing what they offer to stand on their own merits. Even to be willing to leave a discussion if it means no further ground can be gained if it means peoples personal boundaries are being compromised. Even truth should never be used to destroy others, but to enlighten. Wisdom is in knowing the difference.

Foregoing the references to different sides going in different directions, this an excellent post, and well communicated. And in sympathy for all believers, we do all come by happenstance from different perspectives in what we believe and have learned from God. The trick is in learning to see things from other people's perspectives, while still maintaining our own mind on matters.

It must be conceded that it is natural to be defensive, as you say. I found that the stronger I became in my doctrinal beliefs the less defensive I became. But I also developed the humility to admit the weaknesses inherent in my positions. For instance, when the world tries to tell me that the church is full of hypocrites and judgmental types, I usually just agree with them, LoL. But at the same time I present the other side of the coin; that there are plenty out there who are very genuine, and seeking to serve God as faithfully as they know how every day. This has a way of catching them off guard, because they were expecting contentious contradiction and instead got someone conceding their point.

It's the same way in debates, imo. If we have humility, it makes us able to concede a point now and then. But now this is why the topic addressed in this thread becomes so important. Who wants to concede a point to someone when they're already insulting and mocking you? What would any sane person expect to receive from someone who is already trying to make you look like a fool? I will nevertheless do so on occasion, but it does take both a humility to admit to not knowing everything and also to withstand being mocked all the more. And I think matters could be made so much easier where reconciling with others were concerned if derisiveness was eliminated from the conversation altogether. Then both parties might feel a little more at ease about occasionally admitting maybe they were wrong about something.

 

[OzSpen]

Wonderful verse. And thanks for the full response, sister. I may respond in full later, but for now I'd like some more participants, since I know many take positions on the issue both favorable and unfavorable.

@Enoch111, @OzSpen, @Frank Lee, @amadeus, @lforrest (especially), @emekrus, @GodsGrace, @Heart2Soul, @Triumph1300, @epostle1, @Rollo Tamasi, @brakelite, @Harvest 1874, @quietthinker, @TheHolyBookEnds, @Naomi25, @Dcopymope, I'd like your inputs here as well if possible. Also invited to share, despite taking what I suspect might be the contrarian position to mine (since they have taken it in the past): @Phoneman777, @Stranger, possibly others. I want an honest and open debate.

Whoever might have been missed or forgotten by accident, please forgive me.
Hidden

HiH,

There are a number of verses that state or imply that we ought to respect other people and one another. I'll mention only a few:

• 'So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets' (Matt 7:12 NIV);
• 'Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves' (Rom 12:10 NIV).
• 'Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves' (Phil 2:3 NIV).
• 'Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor' (1 Peter 2:17 NIV).

This is enough to show me that all Christians should be respectful to one another.

To be honest, I'm tired of bickering on this forum - and I've probably done some myself. I will come here no more to have someone tear into me for trying to correct a doctrine that I can't find in Scripture.

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

Interesting that the discussion has gone into three directions; one which @amadeus and @bbyrd009 were chatting about, loving selflessly; Then that which @epostle1 and @BreadOfLife were complaining about what they perceive as attacks against themselves personally because certain ones such as @brakelite and others have a Biblical worldview that differs from their own regarding church and prophecy; then the third which clung more closely to the OP...insulting and derisive responses to others. Yet they are all related. We all respond in any discussion, and live life in general, according to the spirit under which we operate as individuals. The natural man is naturally selfish. Thus he will respond defensively. The natural selfish man is naturally predisposed to self preservation. Thus he will respond in a manner which preserves pride, upholds his status, retains ego. And he will go to any lengths to do it. Even to going on the attack to put others down in order to create an impression, even if it is in his own mind only, that he is winning. The selfless man however, will be more inclined to put forth his arguments in a discussion, or provide what he believes will provide for others, regardless of self interest, with other peoples best interests in mind even if it costs themselves status, pride, or reputation. Such folk are always open to discussing matters with an open mind, willing to explain their points without promoting self, allowing what they offer to stand on their own merits. Even to be willing to leave a discussion if it means no further ground can be gained if it means peoples personal boundaries are being compromised. Even truth should never be used to destroy others, but to enlighten. Wisdom is in knowing the difference.

nice, i guess switching sides in an argument is a good therapy for this?

plus i guess one can toggle between the two also, right.
One would be more inclined to an egoic response where they are biased for whatever reason, and less likely where they are not biased, something like that?

but imo regardless of the truth of what you say about someone speaking, there is also the listening side of things to consider here; one being treated poorly even as a newbie should be able to get the hint pretty quick, don't you think?

truth being used to enlighten rather than destroy others, hmm
see, i perceive "perspectives" are really being addressed here, as i have witnessed "truth" being uttered to enlighten, yet it destroys a certain listener anyway.

So i perceive that you are speaking to the intent of the speaker there?
And i guess i agree that that might even be a valid basis to convict someone on, but surely you agree that if they spoke the truth the delivery should be a secondary consideration? Sometimes the truth hurts, even with sugar right

 

[epostle1]

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

I fail miserably.

 

[bbyrd009]

bro you are aware that that pope's prayer is seriously disturbed right, and not even a little bit Scriptural

I will come here no more to have someone tear into me for trying to correct a doctrine that I can't find in Scripture.

then how else will they be exposed (and put to shame) do you think, Oz

 

[lforrest]

How often are we actually asked for "the reason for our hope?" Not often, I think this refers to our personal testimony. The only people who have ever asked me are other Christians.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Interesting that the discussion has gone into three directions; one which @amadeus and @bbyrd009 were chatting about, loving selflessly; Then that which @epostle1 and @BreadOfLife were complaining about what they perceive as attacks against themselves personally because certain ones such as @brakelite and others have a Biblical worldview that differs from their own regarding church and prophecy; then the third which clung more closely to the OP...insulting and derisive responses to others. Yet they are all related. We all respond in any discussion, and live life in general, according to the spirit under which we operate as individuals. The natural man is naturally selfish. Thus he will respond defensively. The natural selfish man is naturally predisposed to self preservation. Thus he will respond in a manner which preserves pride, upholds his status, retains ego. And he will go to any lengths to do it. Even to going on the attack to put others down in order to create an impression, even if it is in his own mind only, that he is winning. The selfless man however, will be more inclined to put forth his arguments in a discussion, or provide what he believes will provide for others, regardless of self interest, with other peoples best interests in mind even if it costs themselves status, pride, or reputation. Such folk are always open to discussing matters with an open mind, willing to explain their points without promoting self, allowing what they offer to stand on their own merits. Even to be willing to leave a discussion if it means no further ground can be gained if it means peoples personal boundaries are being compromised. Even truth should never be used to destroy others, but to enlighten. Wisdom is in knowing the difference.

Thank you.
This is precisely the type of dishonest post I was referring to.

I couldn't care less if anybody on this forum simply "disagrees" with Catholic doctrine or had a "different world view." It is only when those posters resort to lying - as YOU have just done - that a post goes from simple disagreement to full-throttle anti-Catholicism.

Thanks for that great example . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And when you are rebuking others, do you support being derisive or not?

No.
Derisiveness is contemptuous mocking.

Have I been guilty of that? Probably - and so has just about everybody else on this forum.

 

[Hidden In Him]

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

Ranks up there among the strongest verses in the Bible, and unequivocally hits the nail on the head of exactly what the context is: Making a defense. It is what nearly we all do here, in one way or another. And does not our conscience bother us when we mock?

I fail miserably.

Epostle, I am an authoritarian, and regard part of my calling in Christ to be as such. But I fail miserably at it as well sometimes. In the words "so that when you are abused those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame," I am put in remembrance of some of the posts I have seen our brother @emekrus write. I'm sure he's no more perfect than anyone else is, but I've seen some of his responses and thought, "brother, how are you managing that kind of soft-spokenness in the face of being rudely opposed," LoL. I do believe the temperaments we are born with also play a role in this, so for some it is easier than for others. But I truly do sometimes see examples of those who are keeping these commandments better than I am myself. As the scripture says, we each have our own burden to bear (Galatians 6:4-5).

 

[Hidden In Him]

No.
Derisiveness is contemptuous mocking.

Have I been guilty of that? Probably - and so has just about everybody else on this forum.

Yes, and just about everyone else on any of the other Christian forums as well. It's everywhere.

As you can see from the above post, I include myself in this. So my intention with the OP was to draw attention to it, so that through scriptural proofs and consensus it might at least come to be recognized as a sin here; one to be guarded against rather than endorsed (as I believe a few here still do. Not you). I've been around, and I see Christianity Board as having a real possibility of becoming a true Christian community, despite doctrinal and denominational differences. In some ways it already is. Everyone seems to know each other like family, despite some strong differences. So this thread is a further step in that direction. Time will tell if it works, but I believe somewhere in this world there needs to be a Christian forum where those from all walks within Christendom can find true fellowship in the Spirit. I think it's a dream worth having, because as stated in one of the early posts, I see a lot of people entering forums these days who appear to have that hope in mind, only to be hurt and disappointed with the result and walk away.

 

[Helen]

@epostle1

Are you remembering to be clicking on- " Upload a file" which is in the middle box, and sits between "Post Reply" and "More Options", below?

You pictures are still not showing up.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, and just about everyone else on any of the other Christian forums as well. It's everywhere.

As you can see from the above post, I include myself in this. So my intention with the OP was to draw attention to it, so that through scriptural proofs and consensus it might at least come to be recognized as a sin here; one to be guarded against rather than endorsed (as I believe a few here still do. Not you). I've been around, and I see Christianity Board as having a real possibility of becoming a true Christian community, despite doctrinal and denominational differences. In some ways it already is. Everyone seems to know each other like family, despite some strong differences. So this thread is a further step in that direction. Time will tell if it works, but I believe somewhere in this world there needs to be a Christian forum where those from all walks within Christendom can find true fellowship in the Spirit. I think it's a dream worth having, because as stated in one of the early posts, I see a lot of people entering forums these days who appear to have that hope in mind, only to be hurt and disappointed with the result and walk away.

I think that SOME of us try to correct without contempt - but MANY others here lie - with contempt towards the Catholic Church.

Whereas, I may disagree - and disagree strongly with certain Protestant doctrines - I NEVER lie about what Protestants teach.
It's unfortunate that the same cannot be said of the anti-Catholics here . . .

 

[epostle1]

1 Peter 3:15 encapsulates apologetics as an art and a science. Apologetics is a branch of evangelism that explains and defends. Scott Hahn, James Akin and Dave Armstrong (and many others) live up to the standards in 1 Peter 3:15

 

[Dcopymope]

1 Peter 3:15 encapsulates apologetics as an art and a science.

(1 Peter 3:15) "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

That word "reason"...... One of the definitions of the word "reason" is to "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic", or to come to a rational conclusion. How often do you see this characteristic among 'Christians'? I tend to see the exact opposite. Is an unbeliever supposed to give such "Children of God" the time of day?

 

[epostle1]

James White Has Completely Lost It

And by "it," I mean two things: First, his mind, and second, the debate.

The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures depicting those who have urged him to be more charitable with Frank Beckwith as radical Muslims protesting and urging beheading.

Here are the pictures.
To the first he gave the name "RCfatwa" (i.e., Roman Catholic fatwa):



To the second he gave the name "RCcharity" (i.e., "Roman Catholic charity"–depicting the attitude of the man in the picture as the kind of charity that Catholics display):



ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Toward the end of his post, White seeks to blunt criticism of these pictures (or appears to do so) by saying:

Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I’m to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.​

I’m sorry, but no. This kind of excuse will not do. Not in the slightest.

You do not compare your interlocutors to Islamists or portray those who urge charity on your part as if they were advocates of beheading those who disagree with them. Whether you feel they are right or wrong, annoying or not, or even reasonable or not, the actions of people engaged in this discussion with White are simply incommensurate with the kind of actions undertaken by radical Muslims.

What White has done here is not humor.

It is vile. It is reprehensible. It is despicable. It is outrageous. If White were thinking rationally, he would see this.

Hence, White has lost his mind when it comes to this. He is not functioning as a rational agent on this topic.

He also loses any debate on this point via special application of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law holds that the longer an online discussion goes, the greater the odds of someone making a comparison to Hitler. It is standard practice in many Internet circles–because of the inflammatory nature of this comparison and its tendency to start flame wars and shut down rational discussion–to regard anyone who makes such a comparison (unless you are talking about real-life Nazis or mass murderers) as having automatically lost the debate in question.

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world, and thus anyone who depicts his debate opponents as Islamists automatically loses whatever debate was underway due to forfeiture.

He has crossed a fundamental line that shows himself to be incapable of holding a rational discussion. Excuses like "it was just a little levity" count for nothing. Those are the remarks of a troll. The individual has shown that he is not willing to make a good faith effort to abide by the terms of Internet discussions, and there is no point in discussing anything with him–either ever or at least until he seriously and sincerely acknowledges just how far over the line he was.

Discussion over.

James, you lose.

If you were Catholic, I’d tell you to go to confession.

What you did was vile, unacceptable, and childish. You have reduced yourself to the status of a troll.

If you can’t immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind.

UPDATE: The above pictures are so vile, particularly in light of 9/11 and the ensuing history and those who have been threatened or killed by radical Muslims, that this should be a matter upon which individuals of all confessional affiliations should be able to agree, including Evangelicals. I would like to invite Evangelicals, including those who have been close to White, to both publicly and privately distance themselves from the actions of Mr. White in posting these pictures as an act fundamentally incompatible with Christian charity. Evangelicals, in particular, can play a spiritual service to White by making this clear to him, since as the pictures themselves illustrate, he is deaf to appeals to charity from Catholics.

http://jimmyakin.com/2007/08/james-white-has.html

 

[brakelite]

What would you do if someone called your mother a whore in front of you, her, and in public?

@BreadOfLife Is the above not taking personally and taking personal offense at something not intended as a personal attack? I cannot be bothered to search, but I am fairly sure I could find something similar of yours. Babylon the harlot exists. The picture scripture paints is very specific. Full of detail. While I understand the propensity to defend ones own denomination if identified as being represented as that whore, could it not be accomplished without the personal slight and offense so common among Catholics? If one such as I comes along and provides evidence that leads to the RCC as being the only church/state organisation that meets the criteria, then it is up to such as yourself and epostle 1, should you disagree, do so using the same method...provide evidence that it is not so, or provide incontrovertible evidence that the whore is someone else. That is a lot easier to prove should it not rather than throwing shotgun blasts of accusations "liar, liar" hoping for a hit.
In revealing evidence, it is simply believing that the Spirit of God did not place that picture of a whore in Revelation for us to ignore it, or to take the politically correct stance in refusing to attempt to identify because it may offend. I said in my previous post that truth ought never be used to destroy. I stand by that. Which is why I have never offered a straight out accusation such as "your church is Babylon the whore", without accompanying reasons...which are intended to reveal truth in a Biblical context, removing any motives that can be termed "hate speech" or "anti-catholic" rhetoric. And if the evidence thus provided are lies, then of course by all means refute them...bluster and rhetoric however does not constitute refutation. History may be fudged, obscured, hidden and even removed from our memories, but heaven remembers.

 

[Philip James]

Wow. Just wow

 

[epostle1]

Who is James White?

James White (b. 1962) is a Reformed Baptist apologist, author, public speaker and debater, and elder at his church. He does many other things in his apologetics besides oppose Catholic theology, and many of these are good and worthwhile endeavors; for example, his critiques of Islam (his recent emphasis), the King James Only viewpoint, theological liberalism, Mormonism, and atheism.

Who is Francis Beckwith?

Former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a group of over 1000 evangelical theologians. He reverted to the faith of his childhood after 32 years in evangelicalism. He did not abandon his evangelical beliefs, he brought them with himself into the Church.
http://jimmyakin.com/2007/05/francis_beckwit.html

 

[brakelite]

@BreadOfLife Is the above not taking personally and taking personal offense at something not intended as a personal attack? I cannot be bothered to search, but I am fairly sure I could find something similar of yours. Babylon the harlot exists. The picture scripture paints is very specific. Full of detail. While I understand the propensity to defend ones own denomination if identified as being represented as that whore, could it not be accomplished without the personal slight and offense so common among Catholics? If one such as I comes along and provides evidence that leads to the RCC as being the only church/state organisation that meets the criteria, then it is up to such as yourself and epostle 1, should you disagree, do so using the same method...provide evidence that it is not so, or provide incontrovertible evidence that the whore is someone else. That is a lot easier to prove should it not rather than throwing shotgun blasts of accusations "liar, liar" hoping for a hit.
In revealing evidence, it is simply believing that the Spirit of God did not place that picture of a whore in Revelation for us to ignore it, or to take the politically correct stance in refusing to attempt to identify because it may offend. I said in my previous post that truth ought never be used to destroy. I stand by that. Which is why I have never offered a straight out accusation such as "your church is Babylon the whore", without accompanying reasons...which are intended to reveal truth in a Biblical context, removing any motives that can be termed "hate speech" or "anti-catholic" rhetoric. And if the evidence thus provided are lies, then of course by all means refute them...bluster and rhetoric however does not constitute refutation. History may be fudged, obscured, hidden and even removed from our memories, but heaven remembers.

By the way, I do not believe the RCC is the whore Babylon the great. All I am saying is that if someone does say such, there is no need to take it personal. None are calling anyone's birth mother a whore.

 

[Dcopymope]

By the way, I do not believe the RCC is the whore Babylon the great. All I am saying is that if someone does say such, there is no need to take it personal. None are calling anyone's birth mother a whore.

Well, don't Catholics essentially believe that the "church" is in a sense their mother? I can understand why would take it personal. You don't just talk about peoples mama like that and not expect them to take exception to it. I don't even take the RCC seriously enough to identify them as the harlot anyway. The scripture to me is clear that the harlot is Jerusalem, but that's just me. If the Jews have a problem with that, they can take it up with Jesus, its his prophecy.