Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christians and the use of sarcasm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This never was an issue before. As I said, at a previous job it was over two years before I cussed, and that due to sudden pain. But the last two places... Horrible analogy, but have you ever seen a dog ignore someone who told them to get off the couch because they were asking the dog to do it. Virtually begging the dog to get down. You could hear in the tone of their voice. But when you really told them "Get down!" -- dare I say barked it out -- they immediately get down.

    It was like that. Only when you were telling them to get back to %$#%@ work you %#$@%#s that they would respond. I thought it was a culture that the first business had allowed to exist as being responsible, but when I went elsewhere, and I ran into a very similar situation (but less so since the workers were a bit older), i have to wonder.
    Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? Interestingly enough, I find his tactics actually work quite well on people.
    His "calm assertive" thing where he would approach the couch, tell the dog to get off the couch, and point to the floor - exuding "calm assertive" energy.

    One of our police officers tells me he uses those same "dog whisperer" tactics on people he encounters.

    When he stops somebody on the highway, he says (not to them, but in explaining his actions) "I OWN the vehicle - from the time I stop it to the time I let it go, that vehicle is MINE". And he projects that in a way that he doesn't have to say it --- he just has that "command presence".
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

      Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? Interestingly enough, I find his tactics actually work quite well on people.
      His "calm assertive" thing where he would approach the couch, tell the dog to get off the couch, and point to the floor - exuding "calm assertive" energy.

      One of our police officers tells me he uses those same "dog whisperer" tactics on people he encounters.

      When he stops somebody on the highway, he says (not to them, but in explaining his actions) "I OWN the vehicle - from the time I stop it to the time I let it go, that vehicle is MINE". And he projects that in a way that he doesn't have to say it --- he just has that "command presence".
      These folks would nod, agree then turn around and continue doing what they were doing. It's like the only thing they accepted was a show of force -- in this case verbal.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        These folks would nod, agree then turn around and continue doing what they were doing. It's like the only thing they accepted was a show of force -- in this case verbal.
        Well, yeah, I encountered people like that when I was the hiring manager for the gas compression company. We called them "former employees".
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          Well, yeah, I encountered people like that when I was the hiring manager for the gas compression company. We called them "former employees".
          Didn't have the authority and if you said something to those higher up they'd give you a funny look and say "Well, cuss at them then."

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            My response was "Have you not read?" That is the height of sarcasm straight from the Lord Himself...
            Yup.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

              Probably not as shocked as the congregation who heard their pastor say from the pulpit on a Sunday Morning.....


              I want to make two statements this morning of utmost importance.

              Number one - Millions of people all over the world are dying and going to hell and most of you don't give a damn.

              After the gasping and pearl clutching....

              Number two - MOST of you are more concerned about the fact that I said "damn" than that millions of people are dying and going to hell.
              Given everything that happened that day, probably more shocked than them.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                You remind me of the Great Welsh Revival, where many of the coal miners got saved, and the only language their mules understood was cursing and vulgarity. They had to retrain the mules to understand their 'reformed' vocabulary.
                During the War of Northern Aggression, many a commander was praised for his eloquent and creative use of profanity on the battlefield. I don’t really know what profanity in the 1860s was like but I imagine it wasn’t too different from what you hear in today’s military.

                edit - or maybe very different from today’s military given their emphasis on feelings and the not squishing thereof.
                Last edited by alaskazimm; 10-02-2021, 05:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                  Given everything that happened that day, probably more shocked than them.
                  The way I heard the story the preacher used the S-word, which would probably be more shocking than the relatively mild D-word.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    It takes wisdom to use sarcasm properly. That doesn't mean Christians shouldn't use it, just that it should be in the right time and place. Sarcasm is great for dealing with wolves, but not for little lambs.
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Had an interesting question come across my feed on FB...

                      For a Christian, is sarcasm a good or bad thing?


                      Thoughts?
                      Sarcasm has had a long history in, and ever since, the OT, so I don't think it is inherently wrong - though it seems very liable to being used uncharitably.

                      Elijah's denunciation of Baal-worship in 1 Kings 18 - especially in verses 25-29 - is an excellent example of sarcastic humour.

                      https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_kings/18.htm

                      Is mockery of false religion something Christians can rightly adopt ? I don't know. Its long history within Christianity as a polemical tactic is not, as far as I can see, a sufficient justification of it. Demeaning others by what we say about or to them (which sarcasm seems essentially to involve), STM to be unChristian behaviour, whether there is Biblical warrant for it or not; and whether Christ did it or not. Kindness is a virtue, and sarcasm seems to be unkind. Sarcasm seems also to rely for its effect on stretching the truth - which, if true, is a bad sign. sarcasm has something of bitterness in it; which is another bad sign. Whether it is effective or not, is surely irrelevant to whether or not it is worthy of Christian behaviour.

                      As Christians, our speech is supposed to be (among other things) gracious, free of foul language, direct, and perfectly truthful. I don't think sarcasm can qualify as speech worthy of a Christian. Since I claim to be a follower of Christ, I owe both my Christian & my non-Christian neighbour the same consideration and courtesy that I would like him to show to me. I would not like him to speak sarcastically to me. Therefore, I must not speak sarcastically to him. I think that that is a valid inference from what is said in Saint Luke chapter 6; as well as being sound natural morality.

                      The rhetorical figure known as irony has something in common with sarcasm, but is not in itself demeaning, as sarcasm is. So irony seems free of objection.
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 10-04-2021, 07:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                        Sarcasm has had a long history in, and ever since, the OT, so I don't think it is inherently wrong - though it seems very liable to being used uncharitably.

                        Elijah's denunciation of Baal-worship in 1 Kings 18 - especially in verses 25-29 - is an excellent example of sarcastic humour.

                        https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_kings/18.htm

                        Is mockery of false religion something Christians can rightly adopt ? I don't know. Its long history within Christianity as a polemical tactic is not, as far as I can see, a sufficient justification of it. Demeaning others by what we say about or to them (which sarcasm seems essentially to involve), STM to be unChristian behaviour, whether there is Biblical warrant for it or not; and whether Christ did it or not. Kindness is a virtue, and sarcasm seems to be unkind. Sarcasm seems also to rely for its effect on stretching the truth - which, if true, is a bad sign. sarcasm has something of bitterness in it; which is another bad sign. Whether it is effective or not, is surely irrelevant to whether or not it is worthy of Christian behaviour.

                        As Christians, our speech is supposed to be (among other things) gracious, free of foul language, direct, and perfectly truthful. I don't think sarcasm can qualify as speech worthy of a Christian. Since I claim to be a follower of Christ, I owe both my Christian & my non-Christian neighbour the same consideration and courtesy that I would like him to show to me. I would not like him to speak sarcastically to me. Therefore, I must not speak sarcastically to him. I think that that is a valid inference from what is said in Saint Luke chapter 6; as well as being sound natural morality.

                        The rhetorical figure known as irony has something in common with sarcasm, but is not in itself demeaning, as sarcasm is. So irony seems free of objection.
                        The problem with your viewpoint is that it makes Jesus Himself "unchristian" in His behavior. The whole of Matthew 23 has not only sarcasm, but straight out insults. In fact the very chapter you cite in support of your position has Jesus insult His opponents. An inference that turns Jesus into a hypocrite is not a valid one for a Christian.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          One of my favorite T-shirts had this: farp,small,wall_texture,product,750x1000.jpg

                          I wore it 'til it croaked. Now I have one similar to this: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTefGKwXEYqmJL4O795kyhiK4yG-GPZh04Vw&usqp=CAU.jpg
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Let's go, Brandon

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            One of my favorite T-shirts had this: farp,small,wall_texture,product,750x1000.jpg
                            Tact ...


                            Tact ... I've heard of it


                            Ah yes -

                            tact.jpg

                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                              The problem with your viewpoint is that it makes Jesus Himself "unchristian" in His behavior. The whole of Matthew 23 has not only sarcasm, but straight out insults. In fact the very chapter you cite in support of your position has Jesus insult His opponents. An inference that turns Jesus into a hypocrite is not a valid one for a Christian.
                              I noticed that problem before posting. I have no problem with thinking that St Matthew - unlike some other NT writers - may simply have been unaware of the idea that Jesus was sinless. Or he may have known and rejected it. The New Testament books, are, after all, entirely human productions, even though they are in some God-breathed. I know of no reason to insist, as a truth beyond all doubt, that the New Testament writers shared exactly the same views on all the same parts of the early Christian tradition; and the NT itself shows that there were differences between them. The sinlessness of Jesus is hardly a leading New Testament doctrine. it enjoys nothing like the prominence accorded to the kingship of Christ, which occurs in the book after book of the New Testament.

                              The Kingship/Reign/Kingly Rule of Christ is intimately bound up with the content of the preaching of the good news; It is about as central a New Testament doctrine as one can have. The sinlessness of Christ is at best a side-effect of that. and even if it were a lot more theologically central to the identity of Christ as Messiah, king, and son of a man, it would not follow that all the evangelists, for all the new Testament writers, would be aware of it, or would all think that it was true or important. to be king and Messiah and son of man, Jesus has to be chosen by God. He does not have to be sinless, any more than He has to be all-knowing or infallible. In order to fulfil the offices he was chosen to discharge, he needs certain qualities; he needs to be a profit like Moses, He needs to be a Priestly character, needs to be a teacher, He needs to be a lawgiver, He needs to be a Shepherd. If He is to be the Passover Lamb, he needs to have qualities associated with the Passover Lamb: But that is no proof that he has to be free of all sin. In some ways, indeed, it would be more appropriate to dysfunction as saviour if he were a sinner: because that would underline how completely He is identified with sinners.

                              The most natural reading of certain NT passages is, that Jesus had attitudes that are (what would in a Christian be called) sinful. If questions are not to speak to their fellow creatures as Jesus addressed the scribes and Pharisees in Saint Matthew chapter 23, it makes no sense whatever that Jesus, who is held up as the example to mere mortals, should exhibit some of the very faults that Christians are forbidden to entertain. if he is totally free of all sin whatsoever - why does he behave in a way, which in a mere human being would be regarded as a grave transgression ? If He is our model, one not unnaturally expects a far higher standard of behaviour from Him. But in that chapter, as well as in several other passages in Saint Matthew, that is not what we get. He appears to be no more holy, divine, or transcendently virtuous, than any great (though imperfect) human being. One expects better of him than the kind of language that one finds in some passages of Calvin on a bad day. Calvin was a fallible, frail mortal, so his lack of perfect sanctity is entirely understandable. Some of him may be regrettable, and even unedifying, but since he was a man and not God, such shortcomings are entirely understandable. But Jesus Christ has no such excuse. He is supposed to be God incarnate. But in those passages, he behaves as though he were something far short of that. Such passages are part of the Bible, therefore, they cannot simply be passed over or ignored, as though they do not exist. They should be taken in their natural & proper and exegetically accurate sense (whatever that may be) - not allegorised away into nothingness.

                              If one must either sacrifice a doctrine, or, abide by the true sense of the Bible, I would prefer to sacrifice doctrine every time. It's not possible to have doctrine based on Scripture, if one does not know what scripture means in a particular passage. And if the meaning of scripture undermines a favoured doctrine, then so be it; the doctrine can go. Otherwise, the tradition which upholds a doctrine despite its poor basis in scripture is, in effect, replacing what scripture says with what tradition says.

                              And that is something Jesus told people not to do.

                              A lot of Christian ethics is based not upon the gospels directly, but on the teaching of Saint Paul and the other letter-writers. It is the teaching of Saint Paul and those other writers that requires certain attitudes of Christians that are not in very good agreement with the teaching Jesus gave to his Palestinian Jewish hearers or with the behaviour of Jesus. If there is a tension between what Jesus taught, and what those other writers taught, it is in the texts and in the early Christian tradition. So what are Christians, reading their bibles, to do about this tension ? Your quarrel is not with me, but with those other NT authors, and with the NT tradition within which they worked.

                              it could of course be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for Jesus to be insulting towards others, and that it is entirely illegitimate for Christiand to be insulting towards others; but if that is the tack one takes, how can a Jesus whose morality is so different from ours be regarded as a good model for us ? it implies that Jesus holds others to a much higher ethical standard than he was able to satisfy himself. How is that not hypocrisy - the very vice which he abominated so strongly in his theological opponents ? Should not a Jesus who comes as our teacher set a higher moral standard to us that he is able to satisfy perfectly, even if we are not ?

                              If it is wrong for us to be insulting, it cannot be okay for Jesus to be insulting. There cannot be a double standard. There can certainly not be a standard according to which Jesus tells his disciples to "love one another", & "love [their] enemies", while Himself engaging in behaviour which is "insulting". For that too would convict Jesus of being a hypocrite.





























                              Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 10-05-2021, 08:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                                I noticed that problem before posting. I have no problem with thinking that St Matthew - unlike some other NT writers - may simply have been unaware of the idea that Jesus was sinless. Or he may have known and rejected it. The New Testament books, are, after all, entirely human productions, even though they are in some God-breathed. I know of no reason to insist, as a truth beyond all doubt, that the New Testament writers shared exactly the same views on all the same parts of the early Christian tradition; and the NT itself shows that there were differences between them. The sinlessness of Jesus is hardly a leading New Testament doctrine. it enjoys nothing like the prominence accorded to the kingship of Christ, which occurs in the book after book of the New Testament.

                                The Kingship/Reign/Kingly Rule of Christ is intimately bound up with the content of the preaching of the good news; It is about as central a New Testament doctrine as one can have. The sinlessness of Christ is at best a side-effect of that. and even if it were a lot more theologically central to the identity of Christ as Messiah, king, and son of a man, it would not follow that all the evangelists, for all the new Testament writers, would be aware of it, or would all think that it was true or important. to be king and Messiah and son of man, Jesus has to be chosen by God. He does not have to be sinless, any more than He has to be all-knowing or infallible. In order to fulfil the offices he was chosen to discharge, he needs certain qualities; he needs to be a profit like Moses, He needs to be a Priestly character, needs to be a teacher, He needs to be a lawgiver, He needs to be a Shepherd. If He is to be the Passover Lamb, he needs to have qualities associated with the Passover Lamb: But that is no proof that he has to be free of all sin. In some ways, indeed, it would be more appropriate to dysfunction as saviour if he were a sinner: because that would underline how completely He is identified with sinners.

                                The most natural reading of certain NT passages is, that Jesus had attitudes that are (what would in a Christian be called) sinful. If questions are not to speak to their fellow creatures as Jesus addressed the scribes and Pharisees in Saint Matthew chapter 23, it makes no sense whatever that Jesus, who is held up as the example to mere mortals, should exhibit some of the very faults that Christians are forbidden to entertain. if he is totally free of all sin whatsoever - why does he behave in a way, which in a mere human being would be regarded as a grave transgression ? If He is our model, one not unnaturally expects a far higher standard of behaviour from Him. But in that chapter, as well as in several other passages in Saint Matthew, that is not what we get. He appears to be no more holy, divine, or transcendently virtuous, than any great (though imperfect) human being. One expects better of him than the kind of language that one finds in some passages of Calvin on a bad day. Calvin was a fallible, frail mortal, so his lack of perfect sanctity is entirely understandable. Some of him may be regrettable, and even unedifying, but since he was a man and not God, such shortcomings are entirely understandable. But Jesus Christ has no such excuse. He is supposed to be God incarnate. But in those passages, he behaves as though he were something far short of that. Such passages are part of the Bible, therefore, they cannot simply be passed over or ignored, as though they do not exist. They should be taken in their natural & proper and exegetically accurate sense (whatever that may be) - not allegorised away into nothingness.

                                If one must either sacrifice a doctrine, or, abide by the true sense of the Bible, I would prefer to sacrifice doctrine every time. It's not possible to have doctrine based on Scripture, if one does not know what scripture means in a particular passage. And if the meaning of scripture undermines a favoured doctrine, then so be it; the doctrine can go. Otherwise, the tradition which upholds a doctrine despite its poor basis in scripture is, in effect, replacing what scripture says with what tradition says.

                                And that is something Jesus told people not to do.

                                A lot of Christian ethics is based not upon the gospels directly, but on the teaching of Saint Paul and the other letter-writers. It is the teaching of Saint Paul and those other writers that requires certain attitudes of Christians that are not in very good agreement with the teaching Jesus gave to his Palestinian Jewish hearers or with the behaviour of Jesus. If there is a tension between what Jesus taught, and what those other writers taught, it is in the texts and in the early Christian tradition. So what are Christians, reading their bibles, to do about this tension ? Your quarrel is not with me, but with those other NT authors, and with the NT tradition within which they worked.

                                it could of course be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for Jesus to be insulting towards others, and that it is entirely illegitimate for Christiand to be insulting towards others; but if that is the tack one takes, how can a Jesus whose morality is so different from ours be regarded as a good model for us ? it implies that Jesus holds others to a much higher ethical standard than he was able to satisfy himself. How is that not hypocrisy - the very vice which he abominated so strongly in his theological opponents ? Should not a Jesus who comes as our teacher set a higher moral standard to us that he is able to satisfy perfectly, even if we are not ?

                                If it is wrong for us to be insulting, it cannot be okay for Jesus to be insulting. There cannot be a double standard. There can certainly not be a standard according to which Jesus tells his disciples to "love one another", & "love [their] enemies", while Himself engaging in behaviour which is "insulting". For that too would convict Jesus of being a hypocrite.
                                That kind of looks like a long ways of going about saying we should basically ignore Jesus' words and behavior in Matthew 23.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by myth, Today, 11:04 AM
                                3 responses
                                17 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-19-2022, 09:07 AM
                                8 responses
                                68 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post myth
                                by myth
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-18-2022, 08:54 AM
                                23 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by mossrose, 01-08-2022, 01:52 PM
                                37 responses
                                224 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 12-26-2021, 11:22 AM
                                6 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X