How does one address a Pharisee?

[water]

How does one address a Pharisee?



In a thread, a poster said:

Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?

How does one address such requests?
Usually, such people have become their questions answered, they just don't like the answers, so they go on with statements as above.

What does one do to speak to such people?

 

[SnakeLord]

It's a wonderful post with just one slight problem:

Lack of detail.

Unfortunately you haven't provided any details with which the quoted sentence can be taken in accurate context. You have failed to mention that the 'defendee' did a runner before actually answering the questions, which is quite frankly rude.

I hate to be the one to have to give you christians lessons in how to be christian, in how to listen to what jesus actually said - but it seems thus far you're all making it up as you go along, happy to preach when it suits you, but constantly doing the opposite the rest of the time.

Now, you say that 'usually' it's just down to people not liking the answers. While that might be true in certain circumstances, you and I both know that is not the case in this matter. As such your post is misleading and dishonest.

 

[c20H25N3o]

How does one address a Pharisee?



In a thread, a poster said:




How does one address such requests?
Usually, such people have become their questions answered, they just don't like the answers, so they go on with statements as above.

What does one do to speak to such people?

Hi Rosa,

You cannot argue with these brood of vipers. Best to ignore them

peace

c20 :m:

 

[fahrenheit 451]

if you dont like the heat c20, get out of the kitchen.
there are several posts left unanswered by you, and the ones you do answer, you answer with an obscure story.
and now I understand you think you the lord god, according to what I've read.
incidently we have to answer a Pharisee, all the time, there are numerous religious fundis on this forum, so it's a constant battle.

 

[SnakeLord]

You cannot argue with these brood of vipers. Best to ignore them

Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck of dust in mine.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

c20H25N3o: You cannot argue with these brood of vipers. Best to ignore them
*************
M*W: Wait a minute! This brood of vipers are the ones who believe in the resurrection! It's the Saducees who don't. Can you explain your comment?

 

[Lori_7]

I think that you're also using the term Pharisee incorrectly. A Pharisee is not someone who makes fun of or challenges a christian....a Pharisee is a person who subsitutes organized religion for a personal relationship with God through Christ...someone who substitutes religious dogma for being born again through the spirit. A Pharisee "goes to church", but "is not the church". A Pharisee takes the lord's name in vain and witnesses falsely of him.

 

[Jenyar]

I think it is apt:
Matthew 23:13
"... Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

I hate to be the one to have to give you christians lessons in how to be christian, in how to listen to what jesus actually said - but it seems thus far you're all making it up as you go along, happy to preach when it suits you, but constantly doing the opposite the rest of the time.

Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck of dust in mine.

 

[c20H25N3o]

c20H25N3o: You cannot argue with these brood of vipers. Best to ignore them
*************
M*W: Wait a minute! This brood of vipers are the ones who believe in the resurrection! It's the Saducees who don't. Can you explain your comment?

Jenyar may say "I have already done it"

Thank you Jenyar

 

[water]

It's a wonderful post with just one slight problem:

Lack of detail.

Unfortunately you haven't provided any details with which the quoted sentence can be taken in accurate context. You have failed to mention that the 'defendee' did a runner before actually answering the questions, which is quite frankly rude.

I hate to be the one to have to give you christians lessons in how to be christian, in how to listen to what jesus actually said - but it seems thus far you're all making it up as you go along, happy to preach when it suits you, but constantly doing the opposite the rest of the time.

Now, you say that 'usually' it's just down to people not liking the answers. While that might be true in certain circumstances, you and I both know that is not the case in this matter. As such your post is misleading and dishonest.

Could you at least find it in your rational, logical, scientific mind to understand that this whole issue is about emotions and attitude?!


Saying

“ Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions? ”

is emotional blackmail.

How would you feel if your daughter wanted something that you think she shouldn't have, and she'd say, "Daddy, if you don't buy me this toy, then I will think that you hate me! You don't love me!!" -- hm?
Would you think she is right?
Would you, just because you love her, indulge her and buy whatever she wanted, so that she couldn't claim you don't love her?
So that you would turn out to be loving in accordance with what she considers loving?


* * *


The main problem in religious discussions is that they are loaded with emotions, and often emotional blackmail takes place.

So the issue is a very practical one: How to argue against someone who is making an emotional argument?


This

“ Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions? ”

certainly is an emotional way of arguing -- calling upon the opponent's "loving, forgiving christian heart".
It is no different from a child saying "If you don't buy me that toy, then you don't love me!"


So, what does one do? How does one approach emotional blackmail in religious discussions?

You shouldn't just sit there, helplessly.
You also shouldn't do something just for the sake of proving that the opponent's opinion about you is true.
You shouldn't just try to live up to the opponent's estimation of you, even though it is an estimation you yourself wish to be true.


I'm sure there is a way!
Share your suggestions, experiences!

 

[SnakeLord]

Could you at least find it in your rational, logical, scientific mind to understand that this whole issue is about emotions and attitude?!

I will certainly try, but there's no guarantee that I will agree.

Saying

“ Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions? ”

is emotional blackmail.

Well, to some perhaps - but the reminder was important as far as I could see. When someone constantly claims one thing, but then does the opposite, I am in the position to correct them. All I hear day in-day out is that christians are loving and forgiving, and on this forum alone I have seen pretty much every single christian state that 'love and forgiveness' are a key part of christianity, indeed making christianity what it is. Now, if someone fails in their god-demanded duty, do I not have the right to inform them of that?

Does this in turn leave them in a position to cry and moan that they don't like the rules god has set?

Furthermore, I feel this post isn't worth the kilobytes its using. Technically I could follow suit and now make a post claiming that "Could you at least find it in your rational, logical, scientific mind to understand that this whole issue is about emotions and attitude?!", is emotional blackmail - when to be quite frank it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. I mean honestly, what's the big deal?

This is the problem with you lot though. You say one thing and do the opposite. C20 will sit there and say "don't judge others lest ye be judged yourself", or similar such tripe - and then 5 minutes later calls us all a "brood of vipers", which is a judgement.

Don't forget Rose, I didn't make the rules. But if people cannot follow them, I don't see why I shouldn't point that out.

C20 has done 741 posts of preaching jesus and gods rules to the rest of us, and then cannot even show the decency to abide by those rules he has spent the last 741 posts preaching.

It makes all of those posts completely null and void, because he constantly preaches something and then constantly goes against that which he preaches.

It's like someone who spends his life beating dogs to death preaching about how bad animal cruelty is.

How would you feel if your daughter wanted something that you think she shouldn't have, and she'd say, "Daddy, if you don't buy me this toy, then I will think that you hate me! You don't love me!!" -- hm?
Would you think she is right?
Would you, just because you love her, indulge her and buy whatever she wanted, so that she couldn't claim you don't love her?
So that you would turn out to be loving in accordance with what she considers loving?

This has no relevance. Instead, let's say that my daughter says "I love you daddy", and then shoots me in the foot. I would say; "Hey, I thought you loved me, so why shoot me in the foot?"

That's more accurate.

The main problem in religious discussions is that they are loaded with emotions, and often emotional blackmail takes place.

No.

The main problem in religious discussions is that the religious person preaches one thing, and then does the complete opposite.

So the issue is a very practical one: How to argue against someone who is making an emotional argument?

He could have just answered the questions which were quite harmless and nothing too stressful. Instead he said "I'm going to ignore you", and as such, having spent a good while making the post to begin with, I felt it important to point out some christian rules and supposed common christian manners.

If people want to avoid future 'emotional blackmail' they should refrain from preaching one thing, and then doing the opposite.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Snakelord

For one to live in love requires co-operation as brothers, but you would deny this brother the most important thing in his life. You would mock it and ridicule it and ignore this brother's pain and even more show contempt for the source of love that heals his pain. This brother tells you with his own words that Jesus sent His Spirit upon him and in that he was healed and for this he thanks Jesus.
How then can you expect this brother to find fellowship with you given that you will not share in his joy? Perhaps if you could show the caring Christian love in your own heart, maybe this brother and yourself could be friends.

peace

c20

 

[SnakeLord]

For one to live in love requires co-operation as brothers

I would say; "No it doesn't", but feel it would be polite of me to allow you the required time to support your statement.

Further to which, jesus didn't come to 'make' co-operation between 'brothers'. Instead he came to "..bring the sword. To set a man against his father, a woman against her mother" etc.. He has therefore succeeded and you complain about it? That's a bit silly no?

but you would deny this brother the most important thing in his life.

But as the bible shows, that was jesus' plan. His purpose was to set me against my father etc. Why are you complaining about it?

You also need to support your statement before we can continue with this part.

You would mock it and ridicule it and ignore this brother's pain and even more show contempt for the source of love that heals his pain.

Actually, I'd take him to a doctor. They would cure his pain, while all the praying in the world would not. He could beg to god for the best part of a decade, and he'd still be in pain. A shrink or a doctor cures, or most certainly attempts to. god does nothing, jesus does nothing, the bible does nothing.

This brother tells you with his own words that Jesus sent His Spirit upon him and in that he was healed and for this he thanks Jesus.

My brother does no such thing. I hate to be the one to say it, but the rest of you are not my brothers - you're total unrelated strangers.

How then can you expect this brother to find fellowship with you given that you will not share in his joy?

I have little interest in a strangers joy. My brother gets joy from many things, and while I don't always feel the joy he does from the thinks he gets joy from, I allow him his right to be individual and get joy from whatever he wants to get joy from. If he has a problem 'finding fellowship' with me because we don't share the same joys, it's his own bloody problem.

Perhaps if you could show the caring Christian love in your own heart

And who would be the 'caring christian'? You? The guy who ignored my questions and called me a viper? Get real you pompous nitwit. You dare use the word 'caring' when all that can be seen is a direct lack of it. Furthermore, if you cared you wouldn't ever preach to me but just accept and understand my right to not believe in a god, or care about such being. "How do you expect me to find fellowship with you given that you will not share my joy of being an atheist"?

You're a hypocrite, and dare come in here and claim "caring", while not only contradicting that which you have said 5 seconds prior, but doing nothing other than show a distinct lack of caring?

maybe this brother and yourself could be friends.

A) They are not my brothers

B) I have no desire to be friends with them, especially when the best they can manage is to call me a viper, ignore my questions and tell me they can't find fellowship with me unless I believe exactly what they believe. Call me fussy if you must, but that's the way it is.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Having been asked to give my own thoughts concerning the question at hand in this thread, I will do my best to offer answer to it.

Now, putting aside the question of whether or not such a person who would say "Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?" is a Pharisee or otherwise (I simply have no comment on this, nor do I feel that it is relevant to the actual question of emotional blackmail), is emotional blackmail something you can fight against? I answer that yes it is something that can be fought against.

The difficulty is that one must be aware of the phenomenon, and that the blackmailer is falsely drawing upon emotions to elicit an answer supportive of his/her own claims/wants/needs, etc... In the example given, the young girl saying that if her father doesn't buy her the gift then she will think that he hates her, the girl probably doesn't really mean it. Even if she did believe it, it shouldn't change her father's response to such threats. The best course of action for the father is to call the girl's bluff (or non-bluff), and deny the request. Not only should he deny the request, but he should also give explanation as to why he denied the request. Expression of love comes in many forms, giving of gifts, helping out with the needs of the one loved, etc... Giving in to demands isn't one of them. If the father gives in to such a threat, he isn't really expressing love, he is expressing a fear. Namely, he is expressing the fear that his daughter will believe that he does not love her. Hence, in denying the threat, and explaining why, he will assert his love for her, and allow her to realize that giving of gifts is an expression of love that should come spontaneously, not from demand. He will probably have to put up with some time of her being mad at him, but in the long run, he can be secure in the knowledge that the incident didn't make her believe in his hatred of her.

Likewise, with the given quote "Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?" can such actions be taken, though the issue is a little more complex. I do not know the circumstance and context of this quote, but, taken as it is, I will offer what I can (so please don't try to argue based on your knowledge of the context, since this isn't being written under that scope). Rather, I offer possible course of action for this form of emotional blackmail in general.

One cannot say, based upon this quote alone, the sincerity of the author, that information must come from the context in which it was written. For now, let's assume that the author is not sincere. In asking, "Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?" the author isn't seeking to find truth. The author, in asking this kind of question, is attempting to expose the person being asked as a hypocrite, and therefore isn't honestly seeking truth from the individual. I don't know what the motivations for the person being asked for not answering the questions in question, but for the moment let's assume that his/her intentions are honest. If such a person's intentions are honest, then it is most likely that he has good reason for not answering. If this is truly the case, then his response should be something to the effect of exposing the bluff, and making it clear WHY he isn't answering the questions.

If his intentions AREN'T honest, and he is simply avoiding answering the questions to his own detriment, then there is fault on his side, and the questioner is justified in exposing this person as a fraud, or hypocrite. If this is the case, the in asking "Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?" he is not really making use of emotional blackmail, but rather, making use of supposed assertions to expose falsehood within the individual being questioned. Hence, his actions are justifiable to a degree. It might simply be better for him to expose the fraud in plain english, rather than challenging his in such a subversive way.

Now, IF the questioner is being honest in his supplication, namely "Could you at least find it in your loving, forgiving christian heart to answer the questions?" then the course of action is simple, answer the fellow. If he is truly, and honestly seeking answers, then what reason have you not to answer the questions, even if he is making use of emotional blackmail? You may argue that such usage is wrong, but even if it is, your response to it shouldn't change.

This is my take on it, take it as you like.

 

[MarcAC]

...and then 5 minutes later calls us all a "brood of vipers", which is a judgement...

Vipers are snakes as far as I know. Calling a computer an iMac is not necessarily correct though, unless you see the features of the computer and for example... it has the features of an iMac. I wouldn't then say that calling that particular computer an iMac is a judgement.

“How would you feel if your daughter wanted something that you think she shouldn't have, and she'd say, "Daddy, if you don't buy me this toy, then I will think that you hate me! You don't love me!!" -- hm?
Would you think she is right?
Would you, just because you love her, indulge her and buy whatever she wanted, so that she couldn't claim you don't love her?
So that you would turn out to be loving in accordance with what she considers loving?”

This has no relevance. Instead, let's say that my daughter says "I love you daddy", and then shoots me in the foot. I would say; "Hey, I thought you loved me, so why shoot me in the foot?"

That's more accurate.

The Magic Rose' quote is actually very relevant to the starting post on this thread. The Snake's post is more relevant to the issue with the chemical guy.

 

[SnakeLord]

Vipers are snakes as far as I know.

How would that change the fact that it's a judgement and do away with jesus saying not to judge?

Not to mention that it's a tad strange anyway. Are you saying that because my internet name is SnakeLord, it therefore means I am actually a snake in real life and that as such calling me a viper has merit? If you are, then you're an odd one for sure.

 

[MarcAC]

How would that change the fact that it's a judgement and do away with jesus saying not to judge?

My opinion is not absolute and it doesn't do away with anything quoted above, however it is my right to share it in a discussion (just a discussion) as it is yours to share yours. As was stated, in a paraphrase; one sees a star that has the properties of the Sun one can call it a Sun-like star... or sometimes it is even called a sun. Some judgements are unavoidable and in that sense, I don't think should be referred to as "judgements".

Not to mention that it's a tad strange anyway. Are you saying that because my internet name is SnakeLord, it therefore means I am actually a snake in real life and that as such calling me a viper has merit? If you are, then you're an odd one for sure.

As far as I know the person behind the posts of SnakeLord could be a Christian who is testing the beliefs and resolve of others... or... some other 'type' the posts reflect. All I see is a post... and the name which prevents ambiguity when replies to the posts are made. Of course based on the choice of name (be it unfortunate or not), I will at times offer a few puns to bring a point across delicately (with some humour). Of course humour is not absolute and so not all will find it funny, or pleasant.

 

[SnakeLord]

My opinion is not absolute and it doesn't do away with anything quoted above, however it is my right to share it in a discussion (just a discussion) as it is yours to share yours. As was stated, in a paraphrase; one sees a star that has the properties of the Sun one can call it a Sun-like star... or sometimes it is even called a sun. Some judgements are unavoidable and in that sense, I don't think should be referred to as "judgements".

What has any of that got to do with c20 calling several of us a "brood of vipers"? Whether the star has properties of the sun or not, is completely irrelevant here. Can't we just stick to the "brood of vipers" comment instead of drifting off into worthlessness?

As far as I know the person behind the posts of SnakeLord could be a Christian who is testing the beliefs and resolve of others... or... some other 'type' the posts reflect.

O...k. How that in any way makes me more of a snake I'll never know.

All I see is a post... and the name which prevents ambiguity when replies to the posts are made. Of course based on the choice of name (be it unfortunate or not), I will at times offer a few puns to bring a point across delicately (with some humour). Of course humour is not absolute and so not all will find it funny, or pleasant.

The name comes from the fact that I keep pet snakes. I once went into the office with a snake that had sneaked into my bag. It then went walkabout and scared the shit out of everyone else. *sarcasm* Some christian dude picked it up, got bitten and died on the spot. He should have known not to test god, but he was working by jesus' words about picking up deadly snakes and not being harmed. Poor fool.

Anyway, funny or not, I fail to see how that makes it any less of a judgement.

 

[MarcAC]

What has any of that got to do with c20 calling several of us a "brood of vipers"? Whether the star has properties of the sun or not, is completely irrelevant here. Can't we just stick to the "brood of vipers" comment instead of drifting off into worthlessness?

Perhaps c2o saw a leader and characterised the rest via the qualities of the leader as he saw them... a room full of iMacs.

O...k. How that in any way makes me more of a snake I'll never know.

Me neither. The statement reinforces the point that I don't know 'you'; I only know the Snake's posts.

Anyway, funny or not, I fail to see how that makes it any less of a judgement.

We are all entitled to our opinions. Just a discussion after all.

 

[SnakeLord]

Perhaps c2o saw a leader and characterised the rest via the qualities of the leader as he saw them... a room full of iMacs.

Oh, stereotyping. Pleasant.

Me neither. The statement reinforces the point that I don't know 'you'; I only know the Snake's posts.

Oh, so because you don't personally know me, the posts have been written by someone else? How would any of this make me a viper?

We are all entitled to our opinions. Just a discussion after all.

I never said people weren't allowed opinions, I merely pointed out that your post has no relevance to C20's judgement that I am a viper. Opinion or not, it still doesn't have any relevance.