At the risk of rambling on, I'd like to expand on this a bit more. At the heart of all this is what some have called the friend/enemy distinction.
The friend asks questions or advances an argument in good faith. They are honest in dealing with others and ask questions to clarify and/or move the conversation forward. They don't have a hidd…
At the risk of rambling on, I'd like to expand on this a bit more. At the heart of all this is what some have called the friend/enemy distinction.
The friend asks questions or advances an argument in good faith. They are honest in dealing with others and ask questions to clarify and/or move the conversation forward. They don't have a hidden agenda, and if they do have an agenda they state that clearly.
The enemy asks questions in bad faith and have a hidden agenda (which may just be self-promotion or much more). They misrepresent what others say and put words in their mouth. They state opinion as fact and often use half-truths. They use emotional manipulation tactics and try and make others feel guilty. They shut down conversation by declaring subjects off-limits. Note that the enemy isn't someone who disagrees with us but who acts in bad faith toward us. They may even seem to superficially agree with us.
We have zero obligation to extend the same courtesy to the enemy that we do the friend. In fact, I'd argue that being courteous to the enemy is morally wrong as it enables them. This is where most Christians make a huge mistake IMO, in that they think they are required to be "nice" to people acting in bad faith. We aren't, Jesus certainly wasn't toward the Pharisees. The enemy uses people's good nature against them by making them think and in-kind response isn't allowed. We cannot act in bad faith back to them but we absolutely are able to state the truth regardless of how impolite or shocking it may seem. We also have no obligation to continue to engage with them.
This affects my worldview on everything, and it's had a dramatic effect on my life for the better once I sorted it out.
Thanks Fla Mom. The problem with that is Mittens uses most of tactics I describe under the enemy despite supposedly being on our side. So does Ben Shapiro FWIW. As Jesus said, "by your fruits you shall know them". People acting in bad faith aren't friends regardless of how much we may agree with them on some things. These people deserve scorn.
Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees are instructive as they represent the ultimate bad faith actors. He said to them, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires." (John 8:44) Jesus dealt with them in brutal honesty and called them out for what they were. Yet modern feminized Christianity says we aren't allowed to do that as it isn't "nice". Pretty messed up.
Mittens' problem, or at least one of them, was that the debate 'moderator' was of the enemy, clearly taking a side, and Mittens was so leaden on his feet that he didn't have the wherewithal to call it out; in essence, he accepted her premises, like an idiot, or rather, like virtually all Republicans had before him, infuriating even average citizens who could have done a better job of repartee. That's one of Trump's great advantages - like Mikey in the old cereal commercial, he may not 'eat anything,' but he'll say anything, and he called out the fake news in a way that no Republican before had.
Yup, you are exactly right regarding that moderator. Romney wasn't used to having his own tricks pulled on him though and floundered. That's the beauty of Trump, he gets it and knows there's power in rejecting the premise. Remember how some media person tried to corner Trump regarding whether he was on Russia or Ukraine's side? He stated that he was on the side of people not dying. Beautifully handled and morally correct on top of it.
At the risk of rambling on, I'd like to expand on this a bit more. At the heart of all this is what some have called the friend/enemy distinction.
The friend asks questions or advances an argument in good faith. They are honest in dealing with others and ask questions to clarify and/or move the conversation forward. They don't have a hidden agenda, and if they do have an agenda they state that clearly.
The enemy asks questions in bad faith and have a hidden agenda (which may just be self-promotion or much more). They misrepresent what others say and put words in their mouth. They state opinion as fact and often use half-truths. They use emotional manipulation tactics and try and make others feel guilty. They shut down conversation by declaring subjects off-limits. Note that the enemy isn't someone who disagrees with us but who acts in bad faith toward us. They may even seem to superficially agree with us.
We have zero obligation to extend the same courtesy to the enemy that we do the friend. In fact, I'd argue that being courteous to the enemy is morally wrong as it enables them. This is where most Christians make a huge mistake IMO, in that they think they are required to be "nice" to people acting in bad faith. We aren't, Jesus certainly wasn't toward the Pharisees. The enemy uses people's good nature against them by making them think and in-kind response isn't allowed. We cannot act in bad faith back to them but we absolutely are able to state the truth regardless of how impolite or shocking it may seem. We also have no obligation to continue to engage with them.
This affects my worldview on everything, and it's had a dramatic effect on my life for the better once I sorted it out.
Too bad you weren't advising Mittens Romney in his presidential 'debates.'
Thanks Fla Mom. The problem with that is Mittens uses most of tactics I describe under the enemy despite supposedly being on our side. So does Ben Shapiro FWIW. As Jesus said, "by your fruits you shall know them". People acting in bad faith aren't friends regardless of how much we may agree with them on some things. These people deserve scorn.
Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees are instructive as they represent the ultimate bad faith actors. He said to them, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires." (John 8:44) Jesus dealt with them in brutal honesty and called them out for what they were. Yet modern feminized Christianity says we aren't allowed to do that as it isn't "nice". Pretty messed up.
Mittens' problem, or at least one of them, was that the debate 'moderator' was of the enemy, clearly taking a side, and Mittens was so leaden on his feet that he didn't have the wherewithal to call it out; in essence, he accepted her premises, like an idiot, or rather, like virtually all Republicans had before him, infuriating even average citizens who could have done a better job of repartee. That's one of Trump's great advantages - like Mikey in the old cereal commercial, he may not 'eat anything,' but he'll say anything, and he called out the fake news in a way that no Republican before had.
Yup, you are exactly right regarding that moderator. Romney wasn't used to having his own tricks pulled on him though and floundered. That's the beauty of Trump, he gets it and knows there's power in rejecting the premise. Remember how some media person tried to corner Trump regarding whether he was on Russia or Ukraine's side? He stated that he was on the side of people not dying. Beautifully handled and morally correct on top of it.