Ought a Christian of good faith take pleasure in being obnoxious?

[MoreCoffee]

Ought a Christian of good faith take pleasure in being obnoxious for the alleged "truth" of their personal individual self-defined religion?

Note the overuse of adjectives :smirk:

 

[Alithis]

i'd be seriously concerned if you found the presentation of truth in the word of god , no matter how uncomfortable , to be obnoxious .

 

[Lamb]

He's not talking about scripture but how one goes about presenting himself for the sake of his beliefs. It's a huge difference.

To answer the question, I think that it depends on the relationship with that person. If the person is being obnoxious in a group of close friends for a laugh then it's not wicked. If the person is on a message board and wants to irritate others on purpose, then he's not being loving to his neighbor and that should be called out and motivated to change.

 

[psalms 91]

Depends

 

[Josiah]

He's not talking about scripture but how one goes about presenting himself for the sake of his beliefs. It's a huge difference.

To answer the question, I think that it depends on the relationship with that person. If the person is being obnoxious in a group of close friends for a laugh then it's not wicked. If the person is on a message board and wants to irritate others on purpose, then he's not being loving to his neighbor and that should be called out and motivated to change.

I think some choose to FEEL "offended" instead of responding to the point raised. Some appear to have a kind of "persecution complex" and that "you anti!" is a knee-jerk defense approach so that they FEEL they don't NEED to respond to the POINT.

Now yes, there are those "fundamentalist" in ALL "camps" and they can be "obnoxious" The "I'M right cuz I'M right so I'M right when I'M claiming I'M right" ("I" here can be a person, church, denomination, cult - whoever/whatever is making the claim for self exclusively, say in the Catechism of self). They just define truth/right with whatever SELF (ditto definition before) says, feels, claims. And thus everyone else is... well.... therefore wrong, apostate, ignorant, dangerous, heretical, divisive, stupid and above all, "anti" self. Yup, it's obnoxious. After posting WAY too much at several interfaith "discussion" forums since I was 10 years old, I've learned there ain't a thing you can do about it - but note it. I suspect such have a strong, strong felt NEED for this kind of egotistical, individualistic, circular "shell" of unaccountability (and I "get" that) but it DOES make discussion pretty hard and very frustrating, and THEY claim, it's ALWAYS everyone else' fault.




My half cent.


- Josiah

 

[Tigger]

I've always felt that how you say something is intrinsically linked to what you're saying.

 

[visionary]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

 

[psalms 91]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

Yup

 

[Rens]

Ought a Christian of good faith take pleasure in being obnoxious for the alleged "truth" of their personal individual self-defined religion?

Note the overuse of adjectives :smirk:

Oh now I understand the question.
You should always be obnoxious about anything, otherwise if everyone agrees or respectfully discusses things it ain't no fun.

 

[pinacled]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

The offended card for the children is over. They should have weaned by now.

 

[Josiah]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

.... and whiners.

 

[Rens]

I think that's an offensive thing to say lol.

 

[Alithis]

The offended card for the children is over. They should have weaned by now.

lol.. totally.

 

[Alithis]

Depends

yup.. i'd be more concerned if all spoke well of me lol..

[summary of what is so uncomfortable that people accuse it of being obnoxious .

that having and honoring a statue of a person is wrong as idolatry .
that praying to god through other names then the lord Jesus is disobedience

that Jesus sets us free from sin and empowers to walk free of it according to the direct Scriptures .
that the willful continence of sin is not repentance
that repentance for the forgiveness of sin is to be preached
that god is able to do everything he has said he will do and HAS ALREADY done .
that all must obey the god news of the lord Jesus as the scriptures states dire warning to those who refuse to obey the gospel .]

any one who finds such things obnoxious must by that reasoning also find the lord Jesus obnoxious . as he is the one that instigated the teachings .

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

Which generation?

 

[tango]

This is the generation of the "offended"...

True, but there's a world of difference between a post like:

I think your interpretation of Ps 103:3 is wrong because it fails to consider 1Ki 15:5 and the context of 2Sam 12

and a post like:

Do you actually read your Bible, or just pick and choose the verses that say what you want them to say?

and maybe:

You obviously lack the capacity to read and understand what the text clearly says

The first opens discussion, the second notionally invites some response but is unlikely to generate a positive response, while the third doesn't even put a thin veil over the insult.

 

[Rens]

True, but there's a world of difference between a post like:

I think your interpretation of Ps 103:3 is wrong because it fails to consider 1Ki 15:5 and the context of 2Sam 12

and a post like:

Do you actually read your Bible, or just pick and choose the verses that say what you want them to say?

and maybe:

You obviously lack the capacity to read and understand what the text clearly says

The first opens discussion, the second notionally invites some response but is unlikely to generate a positive response, while the third doesn't even put a thin veil over the insult.

hahahahahahaha
That first one is just sooo boring.

 

[Alithis]

True, but there's a world of difference between a post like:

I think your interpretation of Ps 103:3 is wrong because it fails to consider 1Ki 15:5 and the context of 2Sam 12

and a post like:

Do you actually read your Bible, or just pick and choose the verses that say what you want them to say?

and maybe:

You obviously lack the capacity to read and understand what the text clearly says

The first opens discussion, the second notionally invites some response but is unlikely to generate a positive response, while the third doesn't even put a thin veil over the insult.

blow !.. thats a good point and a timely reminder

 

[Lamb]

True, but there's a world of difference between a post like:

I think your interpretation of Ps 103:3 is wrong because it fails to consider 1Ki 15:5 and the context of 2Sam 12

and a post like:

Do you actually read your Bible, or just pick and choose the verses that say what you want them to say?

and maybe:

You obviously lack the capacity to read and understand what the text clearly says

The first opens discussion, the second notionally invites some response but is unlikely to generate a positive response, while the third doesn't even put a thin veil over the insult.

Sadly enough we've seen too many posts that are similar to the bottom two examples. Most of us prefer the top example with scripture as back up and not to be used as a taunt.

 

[tango]

On the topic of being offended, there's also the difference between being offended because someone made unnecessary personal remarks (e.g. something like "you obviously lack the reading comprehension to understand what the text actually says") and being offended because what the text says doesn't align with what you'd like it to say and claiming offense is an easier way to silence someone than to actually address their points.

Since it's a topic that seems to generate more heat than light let's consider it in the light of the issue of homosexuality. It's not difficult to see why a comment like "you (homophobic slur) should just repent and stop (expletive) each other" would offend people, it adds nothing useful to the discussion and given the fact the discussion is going on at all something that even in its sanitised form says nothing more than "everyone knows I'm right" renders it useless. On the other hand a considered appeal to Scripture to indicate why the writer believes homosexuality is sinful isn't usefully countered with "I find that quite offensive" - in that situation appropriate responses would be to accept that Scripture does show homosexuality to be sinful or provide a rebuttal that also includes Scriptural references.

If we start deciding that we won't follow Scripture because it offends us in some way we're pretty much down to "do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" rather than "if you love me obey my commandments".