I try to be fair about calling out hypocrisy.

It is rampant among the godless hordes.

It is also rampant among the sanctimonious saints.

PAUL (quoting Mel): “I’m also not sure if JZ knows what a moral standard is because he keeps wanting to show his monkey videos again. I don’t know about you but I have never seen or heard of any moral code or precept given to us by monkeys or dogs. I hope he’s being facetious (for his sake).”

Comment added after (for me) a lot of thought …

Unless this is “proving” something (that cannot be proven) – it is simply polarising for the sake of polarising. And that does not sit well with me. JZ is not a “Pharisee”and in this context you are closer to a Pharisee than he, being not only studied but also a believer. And the Jesus I read of never took “those people” on. He invited and connected. He healed rather than exorcised. And he never poked fun at anyone – no matter the provocation.

“I hope he’s being facetious (for his sake).”

Just a thought.

ME: Is this comment proving something or are you simply polarizing for the sake of polarizing?

PAUL: John, I have no idea what that means.

ME: What did it mean when you said it to Mel?

PAUL: Hi again John, this might sound odd to you – but I know that Mel will “get” this comment without further explanation.

ME:  What sounds odd to me is your refusal to clarify your statement.

From my point of view, it looked like you were criticizing Mel for the manner in which he engaged another person. Did I misunderstand?

PAUL: John, whilst I recognise you are trying to identify what there is to attack or defend here – there isn’t.

And I addressed the comment to Mel. So how Mel receives that – understands that or not – is, surely, down to Mel rather than you. Isn’t it unkind to assume on Mel’s behalf?

ME:  I didn’t assume anything. I asked you explain what you meant in your statement. Isn’t it unkind to refuse an earnest request for clarification?

PAUL: John, with all the kindness I can muster, thank you for your interest earnest or otherwise. In this case I think it kind to allow Mel the freedom to comment without any further distraction from this “side-bar”.

ME:  Paul, with all the kindness I can muster, shame on you.

If you can't explain your statements, be quiet.
Don't scold brothers to make yourself seem "kind".

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

9 Responses

  1. Too many Christians quote pieces of things they’ve heard in church, instead of THINKING through an issue until it makes sense. Questions like “what do you mean?” tend to cause problems for those people, because they don’t have an answer. They don’t MEAN anything! They’re just putting together Christian-y words.

    The kind thing for Mel to do would be to say, “Thanks for the warning, brother! You’re very wise!” and then drop the whol conversation. If he tries to make this guy see his own hypocrisy, he won’t get anywhere.

      1. I’m defining “kind” the way he probably means it.

        Basically it’s a dare, if he’s reading. He can tell me that’s NOT necessarily what kindness is. Or he can admit that, yes, he’s not willing to have a discussion beyond being told how brilliant and in-tune with God his “advice” is…

          1. Sometimes word gets out when a person is featured…

            And by that I mean the Atheists are reading EVERYTHING, and if they think they can cause friction between Christians they will arrange it.

          2. I wonder why the atheists haven’t commented since forever… Probably cause they agree with everything I’m writing.

  2. Somebody must have missed the part where Jesus called the Pharisees sons of snakes, and whitewashed tombs. It sounds to me very much like taking them on. With unkind words – oh, my!

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart