Our Media Savvy President
by Motte Brown on 03/26/2009 at 4:30 PM
President Obama just wrapped up the first ever online town hall meeting in which he answered questions on topics ranging from the financial crisis to decriminalizing marijuana. It's part of the new administration's strategy to create "a broader avenue of information" to get his message out.
"In the new world of online media, formal press conferences are just one element or program to get the message out — to those, usually older, who watch such things on TV. The online version he is doing is an alternative way to get out the same message, in this case on the budget, targeted toward a different audience, usually younger," said Morley Winograd, a onetime adviser to former vice president Al Gore who now runs the Institute for Communication Technology Management at the University of Southern California....
In a way, it's part campaign-style politics and part American Idol, said political strategist Simon Rosenberg.
"Barack Obama is going to reinvent the presidency the way he reinvented electoral politics," said Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network and a veteran of presidential campaigns. "He is allowing everyday people to participate in a way that would've been impossible in the old media world."
But the president is also leveraging the "old media world" as well. He's just off hosting his second televised news conference -- more than any other president this early -- and has made recent appearances on Leno and 60 Minutes. (You would think we're 100 days out from the next presidential election instead of 60 days into his first year.)
So why all the media focus now?
Politics aside, this president simply plays well in America's living room because he's articulate, confident, and cool (except for the I-look-like-special-olympics-bowling gaffe). And America needs the assurance of the president during these uncertain financial times.
Politics considered, he gets the benefit of keeping his poll numbers up in the face of doubt about his economic "stimulus" plan and handling of the executive bonuses "scandal."
But it could prove a fleeting win win. Ultimately, it's his policies, not his media savvy, that will determine (proportionately) our financial course. And the direction of his poll numbers.
1. Chris said the following at 7:39 PM on Mar 26:
Que the anti-Obama/He's leading us to socialism/The left wing media's giving him a free ride rants in 3....2.....1....
2. Melisssa S. said the following at 9:14 PM on Mar 26:
lol, Chris, but if you're talking about the comments, you'd probably be more accurate if you queued the pro-Obama/he's leading us into great changes/you wouldn't fuss if he was a Republican/why do you guys even post "political" stuff anyway rants in 3....2....1....
3. Lita Cosner said the following at 11:00 PM on Mar 26:
Haha, yeah, he's 'media savvy' as long as he has a teleprompter nearby. One only has to search YouTube to find his gaffes when one isn't nearby or functional even for the shortest of comments.
If I was going to make this a real anti-Obama post, I would make a bigger deal out of his pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research positions than on his horrible economic positions (at least on a Christian blog comment; an economics forum might be the other way around).
4. BDB said the following at 11:10 PM on Mar 26:
I totally think that the Special Olympics bowling champion, who bowls a 300 to Obamas 129, should be invited to do a 30-second campaign commercial calling on the President to face him in the bowling lanes - unless he's afraid, of course.
There's a bowling alley in the White House, after all. Nice and secure, easy commute for President Obama. He has no excuse to back down.
5. bb said the following at 7:36 AM on Mar 27:
By "scandal," do you mean the guys who were paid $1 a year with the assumption the rest of their payment would be deferred once they've sold their profitable divisions? According to the NY times article I read, those who were responsible for this mess are no longer at the company.
6. EconNicole said the following at 7:38 AM on Mar 27:
So I'm watching tv the other day and there are two commercials with Obama (both from when he was giving campaign speeches). And I think to myself, I thought the luxury of the election at least being over was that the politicians no longer invaded my time to watch my favorite tv shows. I mean I expect him all over the news. I don't really care about Leno (past my bedtime). And I stopped watching 60 minutes years ago, but at least I expect a political bend their. But when I sit down to relax and watch my favorite tv shows I prefer to not see the president giving a campaign speech.
Now, I think both these commercials are for something and not put out by him (one was about going green I believe), but seriously. I don't want to see any campaign speeches by the president for at least two years (I guess I can't ask for longer).
7. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:56 AM on Mar 27:
As Lita (#3) says, the Hopeychanger-in-Chief's main problem is his horrible anti-life policies. And as she has pointed out elsewhere, Obamov has even canned life-saving adult stem cell research, most likely in spiteful anti-Bush vindictiveness.
And the Teleprompter Kid's economic policies are are nothing new, just more spending and debt-making. In fact, they are just the same as the ones FDR imposed to prolong the Great Depression and were responsible for Japan's lost decade. 200 economists including 3 Nobel laureates pointed this out.
8. Dan Gill said the following at 8:41 AM on Mar 27:
I disagree with the characterization of Obama as articulate. Anytime I've heard him speak without a prepared text he has come across as completely inarticulate. Impossible to understand, in fact.
Sure, he can pronounce "nuclear" and he doesn't have a Texas accent. But he cannot speak without a script.
9. Jeremy said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 27:
"Que the anti-Obama/He's leading us to socialism/The left wing media's giving him a free ride rants in 3....2.....1...."
I thought that opening comment might quell some of the early anti-Obama comments, but nope, the expected exchange follows anyway.
"Obama is media-savvy." (article)
"He is pro-abortion!" (automatic unrelated kneejerk reaction comments to any political post)
"I totally think that the Special Olympics bowling champion, who bowls a 300 to Obamas 129, should be invited to do a 30-second campaign commercial calling on the President to face him in the bowling lanes - unless he's afraid, of course."
I am not a big fan of Obama, but give me a break. He was obviously making a joke, and a somewhat funny one at that. This reminds me of the Don Imus thing -- people having to work themselves up to try to be offended at something that was clearly not meant to be offensive.
10. Emerald said the following at 10:06 AM on Mar 27:
Jonathan(#7),
When did Mr. Obama ever call you names? That's not very nice. At least that's what my mom told me - name calling is mean. I believe she told me that in grade two.
Let's just be civil, people.
I'm Canadian, so I don't know overly much about American politics, but it seems that *any* comment made about Obama sends commenters on the Line into a frenzy of name-calling, judgmental meanness. Come on, you guys.
11. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:49 AM on Mar 27:
Emerald (#10), I guess you must reject Jesus who also called people names. This was in line with His skill at challenge-riposte which brought Him great honour.
Sounds like you are also being very judgmental about our posts :P
BTW, Commissar Obamov is not just pro-abortion; he is an abortion extremist and voter for infanticide.
12. EKB said the following at 10:57 AM on Mar 27:
Jonathan, I dislike the Obama administration as much as any conservative, but I think the name-calling is out of place. Quite honestly, it makes it harder to take your comments seriously, even though I often agree with them.
13. Emerald said the following at 11:18 AM on Mar 27:
Jonathan,
Wow.
How dare you suggest that I reject Jesus? That was completely uncalled for.
I don't agree with Obama's views on abortion at all, but I wouldn't call him names for it. Neither would I tell a Christian that I have never even met that she must be rejecting Jesus.
This conversation has crossed the line into hurtful, so I think I'm going to bow out.
14. Jo said the following at 12:16 PM on Mar 27:
BDB, #4:
According to the Telegraph, he did exactly that:
"Before the taped interview had even aired, the president telephoned the Special Olympics chairman Tim Shriver from Air Force One to apologise and invite some of the association's bowlers to the White House to show him how it was done."
It was a stupid thing to say, and I can understand why some have been offended by it - but really, he who has never said a stupid/offensive thing, cast the first stone...
Although it does slightly give me the impression of a man who's trying just a little too hard to seem cool and funny... but again, who hasn't done that?
15. Jeremy said the following at 12:24 PM on Mar 27:
Emerald --
Dr. Sarfati expresses doubts about the salvation of commenters who disagree with him fairly frequently. I too find it repugnant, but I hope you will not take it too personally.
I also agree with both you and EKB that Dr. Sarfati's use of "Obamov" and the like come across as childish and make it difficult to take him seriously.
16. Helkias said the following at 12:45 PM on Mar 27:
Not to be judgmental but here's some useful advice for some of the stupid posts (yes, I said stupid!)- read the thread, other people's posts, think, then respond.
17. Marie said the following at 1:11 PM on Mar 27:
As far as these comments go,
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." is my word of caution.
Remember, Jesus sees what we post on the Internet, too, and God is love.
18. Salanna said the following at 2:48 PM on Mar 27:
Let me start by saying that I do not like Obama, and I disagree sharply with pretty much everything he is doing and plans to do.
That being said, even I am starting to get rather sick of the Obama-bashing comments. Dr Sarfati, I do agree with you, but I agree with previous commenters, the insulting manner in which you feel the need to express yourself makes it hard to take you seriously. You're making a good point, no need to "spice it up" by tearing down Obama.
He is our president, for better or for worse. We know from scripture that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1, ESV) and "he is God's servant for your good..." (Romans 13:4, ESV)
And we have been commanded to pray for him "First of all, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4, ESV)
Is it really a good idea to spend the next 4 (or 8) years being bitter about who our president is and bashing him at every available opportunity? I think not. I think our time would be better used in prayer for him.
(as a side not, personally I'm praying that God would convict him about the abortion holocaust that he is furthering)
19. EJ said the following at 2:58 PM on Mar 27:
Voting for Obama or not aside (I didn't) I do like the way that he is using technology to connect with people in new ways. If our government uses these cutting edge ways as a means to honestly include people then that is a geat thing and something that people should take advantage of. I think that the new ways of utilizing technology has at least the potentional to do that, depending on how seriously the government takes people's feedback.
20. Al said the following at 3:36 PM on Mar 27:
Yes, Jesus did use harsh language. As did Paul and John the Baptist. But in the New Testament, this was almost always directed at those who clearly and directly threatened the grace message of the Gospel or proudly presumed to be God's people while simultaneously oppressing others.
Furthermore, Jesus, Paul, and John were all specifically annointed. There was also the small matter of Jesus *being* God, able to read hearts and minds, and always responding in the most appropriate way. I do not think that harsh words are never appropriate. But since we are likely not a specifically annointed apostle, prophet, or the Word made flesh, we should take extreme pause before we presume that we have liberal license to insult and call names just because they did upon occasion.
In addition, Paul and Jesus were both long suffering and extended patience and grace consistently, and Jesus was also skilled at evading direct confrontation when He saw that there would be no benefit. It doesn't seem like Jesus jumped at opportunities to dress people down as part of his standard mode of operation.
If we are truly serious about emulating Jesus and Paul, we should ask ourselves if we've continually extended compassion, patience, and grace as they did, seemingly in excess of the harsh but necessary words they spoke-- or if our default is simply cynicism and namecalling just because we can point to circumstances and moments when Jesus and Paul used strong language.
21. Al said the following at 3:51 PM on Mar 27:
Anyway, I'm rather concerned about Obama directly marketing his policies on the internet. It allows him to market his presidency and platform directly to the masses-- something he does very well-- without the immediate back and forth analysis between talking heads that can bring some perspective and (at least the appearance of) objectivity.
Commentary on the internet tends to be unfocused and polarized, and people tend to seek out what they agree with and entrench themselves in their existing positions. Obama is likely aware of this and knows he can take advantage of this effect with the overwhelmingly positive approval rating he already has, especially among hulu-watching internet savvy types.
Maybe I'm being overly cynical and suspicious, but I'm afraid that Obama may be trying to circumvent some of the critical discourse and accountability that comes with the mainstream outlets in order to build momentum and further his specific agendas.
22. Katrece said the following at 4:07 PM on Mar 27:
People, seriously.
Everyone wants to pull the, "judge not lest you be judged" line all the time. But Context plays a major role in interpreting scripture. Yes, we are to look at our own hearts first, "if you see a splinter in your brother's eye, first remove the log from your own eye then confront your brother." That doesn't exempt us from lovingly, judging another.
Read I Corinthians. Paul tells the Corinthians to confront the Christian man who is living in sin, and not fellowship with him until he changes his ways. But that's not the whole story. In II Corinthians Paul reminds them that once someone has repented, that person is to be restored to fellowship.
God is love, and He is a just God. You can't say He is one of those things and deny the other. Scripture is replete with examples of the love of God, and His judgment of those who disobey. Also, Hebrews 12 shows us that it is because God loves us, He corrects us.
God will still be loving when what's written in Revelation, about believers and unbelievers, is fulfilled. What happens to both groups is called judgment, whether you like it or not.
23. Mike said the following at 4:21 PM on Mar 27:
Mr. Obama is playing to his strengths, nothing more, nothing less. He's using new technology to appeal to younger voters - who find him appealing - and to appear "hip" and "progressive". He's using a scripted forum - at which he excels. And he's still in "campaign" mode - something at which he shows a fair degree of talent.
He's a politician. Nothing more. He's using media and his cult of personality to build support for his agenda. Why anyone should be surprised is beyond me.
24. Jethro said the following at 4:45 PM on Mar 27:
Everyone criticizing Dr Sarfati is in the wrong. Where would we be without that great man graciously pointing out our manifest faults and wickedness.
You're a true example to Christians everywhere Dr. S. God bless you.
25. BDB said the following at 6:37 PM on Mar 27:
Jeremy (#9) wrote:
>>This reminds me of the Don Imus thing <<
Now, now...Don Imus got in trouble for publicly insulting "non-combantants," people who were not in the public eye. It is inappropriate for public figures to use their media platform to insult people who are not public figures.
I'm not saying President Obama should be impeached. I'm just saying he should invite the guy to the White House bowling alley and let him be humbled.
As someone who HAS volunteered at Special Olympics bowling tournaments, I didn't find the comment funny because I already KNEW that most Special Olympics athletes were better bowlers than our current president, who is really bad. Give them some free press, and let the rest of the world see that, too.
26. BDB said the following at 6:40 PM on Mar 27:
Perhaps (Australian) Dr. Safarti should be allowed to speak is respectfully of the (American) president after he demonstrates his ability to walk on water and calm storms. And by walk on water, I don't mean across the Great Lakes while they are frozen. Though that might be a good setting to demonstrate storm-calming ability.
27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:44 PM on Mar 27:
Al (#20): we are supposed to be imitators of Christ. There is nothing about imitating only his gentleness and not his harshness when required.
It is a cop out to point to His deity, because His skill at challenge-riposte gave him great honour and helped mark Him out as one to be listened to.
Also, because He is God, He not only knew when harshness would be the best approach, but also when gentleness would be the best course of action. But since we are not God, we can fail when it comes to appropriateness of harshness, but by the same token, we can be over-eager to wimp out with gentleness when rebuke is needed.
I think a large factor of Obama's win was the failure of evanjellyfish and social-justice-type Catholics to call Obama out on his radical anti-life policies.
For the record, there are times when I use a gentle approach, as others have noted.
28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:52 PM on Mar 27:
Emerald (#13) and Jeremy (#15), can't you detect a reductio ad absurdum. You said name-calling is wrong. I pointed out that Jesus did this. Ergo, the logic of your position is to reject Him. I doubt that you do reject him, which is the point of reductio ad absurdum: the absurd conclusion should make you rethink your premises.
Note also that America has three branches of government, which the Founders intended as a check on too much power to one person or group. So those who pray that the Congressional Republicans co-operate with Obamov (not necessarily here but in other boards) are missing the point: they are meant to oppose if appropriate, as they are part of the Legislative Branch.
29. BDB said the following at 9:43 PM on Mar 27:
I give President Obama full credit for switching from a radio address to a web cast. When I heard that, it made me wonder why no one else had thought of that sooner. I've never even known where the actual "radio address" was broadcast, I only heard the news clipings saying it was on Saturday.
It does risk overexposure. One of the reasons Reagan is remembered as a great communicator" is that he had relatively few press conferences and speeches. Those that he did have were written by Peggy Noonan, who has an excellent turn of phrase.
If we see a Presdent every week, we'll get tired of him much quicker, and it will cease to be "special." He is already very verbose, and some people are now comparing short phrases (like "The Buck Stops Here) with some of the long-winded, confusing answers Obama gives. I literally fell asleep during his first speech, it was so boring.
Of course, for those of us who disagree with the policies, overexposure that leads to a weak presidency and political gridlock might be welcome.
30. Thomas said the following at 10:02 PM on Mar 27:
Wow some of these comments are just bad. I have been trying to not get involved with these Boundless comments anymore because I often times find myself arguing with others, but I just want to point out that out of all my forums I frequent, this one often times has the most hurtful and distressing posts.
Does anyone besides me find that ironic? Paul spends all of Ephesians talking about love and unity, and here we are snapping at each other under the guise of "truth" or some other excuse.
31. L said the following at 1:58 PM on Mar 28:
Jonathan (11),
It is true that Jesus called others names sometimes. But, I would suggest you refrain from that until you are as perfect as Jesus is. Or He VERY LOUDLY tells you to.
It is hard to listen through your unkind words to hear your thoughts.
32. farmer Tom said the following at 9:08 PM on Mar 28:
How many of you reading this blog call yourselves Christians?
What does that name mean?
From Acts 11:26 "
Now you understand don't you that Christian was not a term of endearment or affection. Properly said, the term Christian would include a little spray of spit coming from your mouth with the contempt when using the word, now spray it with me "Christians"!
Some of you have deep love and affection for politicians, who many of the rest of us hold in very low esteem. I find it fascinating that in all the political comments I've posted at Boundless never once has anyone complained about my use of the spittle laced Jorge the Younger Shrub or Juan McMark-o-Cain. I consider both of them to be men of low moral character, who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then knowingly and with forethought violated that oath by sponsoring and signing McCain/Feingold, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. What parts of "Congress shall make no law" do these imbeciles not understand?
Not once has a reader at Boundless ever complained about the use of those names! Yet every time the Mulatto Messiah, the Teleprompter in Chief, Commissar Obamov, gets mentioned by name, those who worship at his feet started wailing like inconsolable babies about the mistreatment of their hero.
Somehow your cries seem empty, first because you were not offended by the same kind of comments about the previous president and other members of his Repugnant party. Bob Dull, Newt the Grinch, etc, etc, etc.
But secondly, your hero has the presidency, if he is truly the courageous and effective leader you think he is, your reaction should be laughter, since name calling can not effectively stop a movement or proposition of Truth. (See Christianity above.) If BHO is the real deal, and can solve all the worlds problems, including ending hunger, global warming and acne, then why are you so upset about a few sarcastic comments which poke fun at his philosophies by playing games with his name? Kind of thin skinned aren't y'all?
A little contempt for Christianity did not change the truth of the claims of Jesus Christ!
If BHO is as great as many of you want to believe, a little sarcastic humor involving his name will do nothing to affect the magnificence of his presidency. If on the other hand, those of us who find Mr. Obama's philosophies and ideas to be anathema to Biblical Christianity will someday be vindicated, when his actions result in an economic and social mess similar to that of the "great" FDR or Jimmy Caaarter. :)
33. Keith said the following at 10:05 PM on Mar 28:
I just don't understand why you guys focus so much attention on the morality (or lack thereof) of the US President. I don't care what Obama isss doing about the economy or abortion - What are YOU doing? Are you taking in unwanted children? Are helping poor and unemployed people in your community? It is not for us to judge Obama - God will certainly do that. But how will he judge you and me for our actions???
34. farmer Tom said the following at 3:36 PM on Mar 29:
John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
1 Corinthians 13:6
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.
2 Corinthians 13:8
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
Ephesians 4:15
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.
Ephesians 4:25
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 John 3:18
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
2 John 1:3
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
3 John 1:4
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Seems to me that Scripture puts a great emphasis on the importance of the truth, in fact Truth is one of the names of Jesus Christ Himself.
The word truth is mentioned 224 times in the KJV.
Yeah, I guess "truth" is just a guise.
35. BDB said the following at 9:51 PM on Mar 29:
farmer Tom (#33) wrote:
>>Not once has a reader at Boundless ever complained about the use of those names!<<
You're an American criticizing American leadership. If you were using derogatory language to refer to the British Monarch, I expect the Commonweath readers would pipe up quickly that Americans ought not do such things.
You also do it less.
36. EKB said the following at 11:15 PM on Mar 29:
Farmer Tom,
First, I am quite familiar with the name of "Christian" being used in a derogatory manner- If anyone is interested, take a look at Justin the Martyr's First Apology to get an idea of this.
Secondly, while it is difficult to convey a respectful rather than angry tone on the internet, I must tell you that in all honesty the reason I haven't previously complained about your name calling of certain politicians is that I find it so offensive as to be almost laughable. For instance, your name calling of John McCain comes across as extremely racist. There are millions of Hispanic Christians in this world, and I think they would find your comments particularly hurtful. I share your disgust with our president's policies and participation in the Culture of Death, but do you honestly think you will convince those on the other side with such vitriolic speech?
37. Jeremy said the following at 11:12 AM on Mar 30:
Farmer Tom (#33) -- "I find it fascinating that in all the political comments I've posted at Boundless never once has anyone complained about my use of the spittle laced Jorge the Younger Shrub or Juan McMark-o-Cain."
I have expressed annoyance and confusion about your use of these names on more than one occasion. But since those have slipped by you, I'll be glad to oblige again: what on earth could "Juan McMark-o-Cain" be referring to? It comes across as a mismash of vaguely racist and non-specifically insulting gibberish.
But in all honesty, I suspect the reason fewer people complain about your childish name-calling than Dr. Sarfati's is that your posts tend to have a tinge of irony, a hint of joking. I have expressed it before, but I still suspect that "Farmer Tom" is an ironic character someone has created (and if so, I applaud you).
---------------------------------
Dr. Sarfati (#28) -- "Emerald (#13) and Jeremy (#15), can't you detect a reductio ad absurdum."
The problem may be that you have (seemingly) genuinely questioned the legitimacy of commenters' faith a few too many times for it to be believable that in this specific case you meant for it to be an absurd overstatement.
38. farmer Tom said the following at 12:07 PM on Mar 30:
38. Jeremy,
Very well done!
You succeeded in claiming I am "racist" and "childish" while accusing me of name-calling! Bravo!
Aren't you the epitome of sweetness and light, accusing me of being racist and childish while cloaking yourself with all that is noble and good?
Maybe I should have referred to Juan McAmnesty instead so that someone of your intellectual capabilities could get the joke?
37. EKB,
Frankly, I have such a low regard for the spiritual, moral and intellectual capabilities of many of the commenter's here, especially those who claim the name of Christ (Christians) while at the same time living, acting and thinking as the unGodly, in their relationships, their educational and career choices and their politics, that most of my posts are simply a long shot at reductio ad absurdum, designed to show the total and complete foolishness of many of the statements made here.
Ever heard the term "pearls before swine"?
What passes for "christianity" today, including many of the commenter's here is so far removed for any semblance of Biblical Christianity, that they should abandon the pretense and begin calling themselves what they really are, big government socialists, who worship the god of time and chance, while practicing some vague observance of post-christian tradition. Some kind of Neo-christianity.
39. Unlurked said the following at 12:20 PM on Mar 30:
Longtime lurker; first time commenter. I've noticed that whenever anything remotely politically conservative comes up that there is an outpouring of comments from the left. I've come to wonder how many of the frequent commenters from the left are true Boundless fans and how many are paid (or unpaid) political operatives who lurk on conservative blog sites just to promote their politics and worldview.
Retreating back into lurk mode.
40. Jo said the following at 2:09 PM on Mar 30:
Unlurked:
"I've come to wonder how many of the frequent commenters from the left are true Boundless fans"
Commenting here doesn't necessarily indicate that someone agrees with or supports Boundless/FOTF. I comment because I find the topics engaging and I learn from the wide variety of views. Sometimes I agree with the poster, sometimes not.
41. Al said the following at 3:15 PM on Mar 30:
Dr. Safarti said, "We are supposed to be imitators of Christ. There is nothing about imitating only his gentleness and not his harshness when required.
It is a cop out to point to His deity, because His skill at challenge-riposte gave him great honour and helped mark Him out as one to be listened to."
I agree. But I also think it would be just as much a cop out to excuse habitual verbal harshness and excess because Jesus used hard words to break hard hearts in specific moments with specific people.
Maybe I wasn't very clear, but I never claimed that we should *only* imitate Jesus's meekness and gentleness. And I did affirm that there are times when harsh words are appropriate. I want to make that clear. But I also wanted to emphasize that we can't presume *we* are always (or even usually) correct when *we* feel inclined to use harsh words-- and as a result, it should not be our default tone, especially as it was not Jesus's or Paul's default tone either. Simply put, because we are not God or the apostle who wrote half of the New Testament, a healthy amount of self-doubt is in order.
I also believe that the more we enjoy opportunities to dress others down, rather than see it as a last resort, the more we should take pause and be wary of our own motiviations and judgement. All of us need to examine ourselves on whether we consistently demonstrate the patience and longsuffering of Christ and Paul towards those we disagree with, especially towards those who are fellow believers, just as much as we need to examine ourselves on whether we avoid saying things that need to be said out of fear.
It's not enough to simply be meek in moments and harsh in moments because Paul and Jesus were both. Emulating Jesus means that we practice both in correct proportions and in the right situations. Jesus and Paul exercised gentleness and mercy in *generous* helpings, most notably towards pagan, gentile authorities, so bear with me for a moment when I say that I have a hard time imagining Jesus and Paul would regularly leave belittling remarks aimed at other professed Christians and an American politician on a Christian blog. :)
Maybe I've missed it, but ever since you were invited to post on Boundless as a teaching authority, I have not seen much grace and kindness demonstrated in your many posts, especially towards those that may seem to be your weaker brothers. Even though you do often make certain points I can agree with, like your last post, they do tend to come across as consistently defensive and condescending.
"Also, because He is God, He not only knew when harshness would be the best approach, but also when gentleness would be the best course of action. But since we are not God, we can fail when it comes to appropriateness of harshness, but by the same token, we can be over-eager to wimp out with gentleness when rebuke is needed. "
Absolutely agreed. Thanks for clarifying this. And by the same coin, I believe that we should also consider the voices of fellow believers, who are hopefully trying to edify and keep us accountable. If a large number of fellow brothers who are otherwise like-minded consistently call us out on what they see as an excess, there may be a sizeable grain of truth to their objections. A good indication of our humility and teachability-- whether we are too harsh or too mild-- is whether we do regularly acknowledge our excesses, admit our wrongs, and affirm whatever truths our critics may offer.
Thanks for considering this, Dr. Safarti.
42. Al said the following at 5:21 PM on Mar 30:
Farmer Tom (#39),
I get a little dubious when someone claims the ability to accurately ascertain the complete moral, intellectual, and spiritual condition of individuals they don't know by a few of their posts on a blog.
Unless you also agree that you can be summed up as a person by a sample of your own posts. Broadcasting that you think many here are stupid and immoral does tend to carry a whiff of pride.
And really? Are you really implying that Jeremy is stupid because he didn't get a somewhat convoluted and strained attempt at a joke? On a Christian blog? Really?
43. farmer Tom said the following at 5:22 PM on Mar 30:
42. Al said,
Right up to that point you might have had a cogent argument. But, Dr. Sarfati has at hand the entire written Word of Almighty God, therefore he can correctly discern exactly what is truth and what is not. Self doubt has nothing to do with the topic.
We have "thus saith the Lord" as an unimpeachable source of truth. Therefore we (Dr. Sarfati) can make pronouncements of absolute truth based solely and completely on the revealed truth of the Word of God.
Now if someones Biblical knowledge is such that they are incapable of understanding the truth, then it does not fall upon Dr. Sarfati's shoulders to change the message because the hearer is ignorant and unlearned.
44. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:29 PM on Mar 30:
L (#32) is missing the point. Maybe we should refrain from gentleness too unless we are perfect in our use of it. No, Jesus and the Apostles gave us a balanced picture.
One wonders how sensitive souls like L manage to read the Bible given the harsh rebukes given by its heroes. "It is hard to listen through Jesus's unkind words to hear His thoughts." Think of the insult of being compared to whitewashed tombs to Jews who would be rendered unclean by the mere contact with the dead.
Obamov was elected with the help of WFJs and useful idiots in the Church, too afraid to appear "judgemental" that they disobeyed Jesus command to judge righteously not according to appearance (John 7:24). And in an earlier thread, we saw how shocked, shocked some of them were about how ardently the Hopeychanger-in-Chief is promoting prenatal baby butchery.
Jeremy: the main person whose faith I questioned was one who claimed that Jesus was actually mistaken about origins. Anyone who imputes error to the God-man is seriously deficient in faith.
45. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:47 PM on Mar 30:
Good grief, Farmer Tom's "Juan McAmnesty" and "Jorge the Younger Shrub" are no more anti-Hispanic than "Commissar Obamov" is anti-Russian. But both sets point out foibles of these national leaders in a way that is easy to understand.
Oh yeah, we are "unbalanced" in approach — according to nothing more than ipse dixit rather than real analysis of Jesus' approach. Maybe consider that we are the balance — to the WFJ useful idiots who enabled the most baby-hating President ever to be elected, and are still far to gutless to call him on it.
Now B. Hussein "Partial Birth Abortion is a Woman's Right" Oprompta has nominated one Dawn Johnsen to become one of his top legal counsels. This Jezebel worked for NARAL for years and equated pregnancy with slavery. Par for the course for a president who didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby".
46. Chris said the following at 7:52 PM on Mar 30:
Unlurked writes:
Longtime lurker; first time commenter. I've noticed that whenever anything remotely politically conservative comes up that there is an outpouring of comments from the left. I've come to wonder how many of the frequent commenters from the left are true Boundless fans and how many are paid (or unpaid) political operatives who lurk on conservative blog sites just to promote their politics and worldview.
Comrades, our fifth column movement has been unmasked! Quickly, gather up your revolutionary pamphlets and retreat to our caves in the mountains of the internet. From there we will wage a victorious battle against the fascists of Boundless.
47. Al said the following at 11:07 PM on Mar 30:
Yes. Scripture is "an unimpeachable source of truth", though its imperfect handling by imperfect people is not.
But that wasn't really what I was talking about. I was referring to our use of discernment in regard to when harsh words should be used and when they should not be, in situations not clearly paralleled in Scripture, with us being humans often plagued by questionable motivations, and when Scripture specifically commands the following:
"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." Cor 4:6
"... Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." 1 Peter 3:15
There are additional commands to do the same in 2 Timothy 2:25 and Galatians 6:1. And in the interest of accuracy, there are also commands to rebuke sharply, but these are usually in relation to those who are actively undermining the gospel or in relation to (but probably not limited to) elders in sin.
Anyway, I've sort of harped on this on Boundless more than I really want to. And I do want to apologize for sounding somewhat snarkier than I intended. I don't really want to get in it with you, and there are probably better things for both of us to do. It's just that calling Jeremy stupid over a joke was, well, a little screwed up. Hopefully some part of this is edifying.
48. farmer Tom said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 31:
#43. Al said,
And really? Are you really implying that Jeremy is stupid because he didn't get a somewhat convoluted and strained attempt at a joke? On a Christian blog? Really?
Rather than answer that question I'll refer to Dictionary.com.
stupid = stu⋅pid
Pronunciation [stoo-pid,
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
6. Slang. excellent; terrific.
–noun
7. Informal. a stupid person.
Nowhere in my comments to Jeremy (#39)did I suggest any of the above.
Now on the other hand, I have stated before and in the above comment that I believe many here, are spiritually, morally and intellectually ignorant.
ig⋅no⋅rant
/ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronuncation [ig-ner-uhnt]
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
One does not expect the unlearned, the uniformed, to be able to understand things which they have failed to learn.
I believe that this is why so many worship at the feet of Obama, and dislike so strongly Dr. Sarfati's comments. They are unlearned. They have been to the government indoctrination centers, sat under the proselytizing of radical Marxist/Socialist professors, and believe anything and everything they hear from NPR, Public TV, and the CNNBCBSABC cabal.
Having a piece of paper which says you obediently jumped through the hoops required to get a college education does not mean you have any more knowledge than that which the information masters deemed important for you to regurgitate.
Have to go back to work, would be glad to continue this discussion later.
49. Jeremy said the following at 11:59 AM on Mar 31:
Farmer Tom (#39, in reference to "Juan McMark-o-Cain") -- "Maybe I should have referred to Juan McAmnesty instead so that someone of your intellectual capabilities could get the joke?"
I'm afraid my intellectual capabilities are such that I am going to need it spelled out further. Many mischaracterized John McCain's immigration ideas as including amnesty, fine, so "Juan" is a typical Mexican name. With you so far.
Now we take a departure to "McMark-o-Cain". "Mark-o" has been inserted into his last name. I must confess a great deal of confusion. Perhaps a reference to Don Juan DeMarco? That is meeting you well more than halfway, but it would still make little sense in this context. Maybe it just sounded funny to you and has no other meaning? I am sorry to have to further lower your opinion of the faint winks of intelligence of the commenters on here as compared to the blindingness of your own, but I am still in the dark.
50. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:19 PM on Mar 31:
Here we go again with the "Jesus called people names so I can call people names" nonsense!
Why don't you all GROW UP?
51. Al said the following at 3:25 PM on Mar 31:
Farmer Tom said, "Nowhere in my comments to Jeremy (#39)did I suggest any of the above.
Now on the other hand, I have stated before and in the above comment that I believe many here, are spiritually, morally and intellectually ignorant."
Actually, you also suggested that he was inferior in his "intellectual capabilities", which is closer to "less mentally able" and "stupid" than simply "ignorant".
Essentially you implied that he lacked the sufficient mental ability to appreciate your wit, not simply that there was some spot of knowledge he didn't have regarding intellectual, moral, or spiritual matters. It suggested something lacking in his intelligence rather than a possibly temporary gap in understanding-- unless you meant to say that your wit escaped him for the same reason he was also ungodly and immoral.
The meaning and spirit behind the words you chose can't really be rendered innocuous by semantic wordplay. But if you're now stating that Jeremy is not in fact "stupid", I suppose that's a good thing.
52. Jo said the following at 4:19 PM on Mar 31:
#46: "Oprompta"
I laughed out loud when I read that - at least 'Obamov' has some resemblance to his name...
#49:
"I believe that this is why so many worship at the feet of Obama, and dislike so strongly Dr. Sarfati's comments. They are unlearned."
Unfortunately, it isn't only Obama fans that dislike Dr Sarfati's comments.
And since we're talking about learning, I do think that the 58074380th time someone mentions that calling people by insulting nicknames makes it difficult for even those who agree with you to take you seriously, it might be time to learn that your persistent use of such nicknames is needlessly detrimental to your cause.
And Louise, I'm really starting to like you. :)
53. Al said the following at 4:22 PM on Mar 31:
Dr. Safarti said,
"Oh yeah, we are "unbalanced" in approach — according to nothing more than ipse dixit rather than real analysis of Jesus' approach."
There *has* been analysis presented on Jesus's approach here. It considered both who and when Jesus used strong language and the fact that He practiced silence, kindness, and longsuffering in equal or greater measure.
The analysis seems much more compelling and nuanced than the simplistic argument that essentially goes, "Jesus did it-- so can I", repeats "challenge-riposte" ad nauseum, and hardly ever looks at when harsh words are *not* appropriate.
"Maybe consider that we are the balance..."
This is a somewhat cavalier approach to being the body of Christ.
Yes, we each have our gifts, strengths, and weaknesses and ideally we compliment each other as the Church universal. But the same time, if any of us fall short of Christ's example, whether in exercising mercy or in our willingness to state stark truth, we are in error and must change to emulate Him more perfectly.
If you do actualy believe that you bring balance to the body of Christ through liberal use of insults and vitriol, then you acknowledge that you do not actually stand in the center. In turn, you implicitly acknowledge that the overly gentle, meek, and compromising may in fact be a valid balance to your excesses. For what it's worth, I don't hold to that view either, but that's where "reductio ad absurdum" takes us.
54. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 31:
Al, once again, most of MY comments are irenic; just look at my articles on Boundless itself, as well as on CMI, or my four books ...
As for Jo's "I do think that the 58074380th time someone mentions that calling people by insulting nicknames makes it difficult for even those who agree with you to take you seriously", by that reasoning we couldn't take Christ or His apostles or the previous Prophets seriously.
In reality, Christianity is hardly taken seriously because many Christians have become so politically correct that they never judge righteously (John 7:24) or demolish arguments (2 Cor. 10:4-5). And when a third of "evangelicals" aged 18-29 voted for the most pro-abortion candidate ever, I would say that the current methods have flopped.
And Louise, here we go again with the "Jesus was gentle sometimes so we must be gentle all the time and never call out falsehood and immorality or imitate His other characteristics" nonsense!
55. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:04 AM on Apr 1:
Comment 55, you are forty-four years old.
Act your age, not your shoe size.
56. Al said the following at 4:57 PM on Apr 1:
"Al, once again, most of MY comments are irenic; just look at my articles on Boundless itself, as well as on CMI, or my four books."
I know this, Dr. Safarti. Which is why I previously noted that your comments on Boundless and your articles sound like they are written by two different people.
While your body of work might be civil, tactful, and articulate, they are written to a general, slient audience and no individual in particular. The only interactions with real, live people we've observed you having here on Boundless has been-- well, abrasive, somewhat disrespectful, and regularly condescending. I hope that's not just because they can actually respond, question, and challenge your ideas.
Maybe you're not usually like this in person. Perhaps you're not even usually like this on the internet. And the fact that you're able to argue certain points persuasively without unnecessary name-calling tells me you can be measured in your words when you choose. Maybe that's why I continue to interact with you-- because I suspect that you're more than capable of civil debate. But it also makes me fear that you're being intentionally obtuse when you refuse to consider any potential correction in your language, and all objections are met with "challenge-riposte".
I don't think I'm reaching when I say that your reputation and credibility before the Boundless readership has been damaged by your choice of words in the comments section. Conversely, Boundless's own reputation may have been affected in inviting you to write and not taking more salient action when you chose to dress down otherwise civil readers. It doesn't have to be this way.
57. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:51 PM on Apr 1:
Comment 56: try following Christ completely instead of selectively. If most American Christians did this, no pro-abort politicians would have a chance.
58. Cathy said the following at 10:28 PM on Apr 1:
I admit he does a great job at reading the teleprompter. But I didn't vote for someone who can look good on camera and smile while lying to me. I want someone whose policies are in the best interest of the country. He has failed at that! I think he is showing off his inexperience. He is qualified to be either a tv show host or a books-on-tape reader. That is all.
59. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:11 AM on Apr 2:
Al (#57): even when my only contributions to Boundless were the irenically written articles, the usual suspects found reason to whinge. One schoolgirl, from her august heights, declared that she would not even read it but denounced it anyway.
Later on, in typical liberal victimitis and mimophantism, people used my challenge-riposte as an excuse. Yet it was clearly the content rather than the tone, which was mild compared to typical misotheistic and liberal hate-speech against Christians and conservatives.
But there is no reason for you to fall for their games. The gutless US Republicans have also emasculated themselves for years by attacking those who challenge liberals more than the liberals themselves (e.g. Steele on Limbaugh).
Let's face it, if most of the Church, and most of the Republicans, were doing their job of explaining the truth, and refuting errors of misotheists and liberals, there would be no need for people like me and Rush.
60. Jethro said the following at 4:27 AM on Apr 2:
Dr Sarfati (#55),
It is actually laughable to see you use the phrase 'demolish arguments'. You are so busy engaging in childish name calling and peddling your misdirected vitriol that you couldn't demolish a crumbling straw man.
On those few occasions you do pause long enough to try and construct an argument, your works reeks of such sophistry and self-serving referencing that you are, at best, preaching to the choir. A word to the wise here, citing an article or blog written by you is hardly a convincing form of persuasion. But that's really the point, is it not?
Protected as you are by the Boundless moderators you may never see this comment. Of course that would just further my point.
61. John said the following at 9:23 AM on Apr 2:
Cathy,
Amen sista!
62. John said the following at 9:36 AM on Apr 2:
Jethro,
Can you ever be specific, or do you just enjoy using big words to make yourself seem smarter than the person you are falsely accusing?
What exactly is "misdirected vitriol"?
Does that mean there is "directed vitriol"? or "targeted vitriol"?
Are you saying that sometimes vitriol is okay?
How exactly does one "peddle" vitriol?
"A word to the wise here, citing an article or blog written by you is hardly a convincing form of persuasion. But that's really the point, is it not?"
Are you here accusing Dr. Sarfari of purposefully trying to NOT be convincing?
What would he gain from that?
"Protected as you are by the Boundless moderators you may never see this comment. Of course that would just further my point."
What is your point?
How is the weather in your world where embassies are the property of the countries they are in instead of to the country they represent?
What color is the sky in your world, Jethro?
63. Chris said the following at 9:40 AM on Apr 2:
Jonathon Sarfati writes:
Let's face it, if most of the Church, and most of the Republicans, were doing their job of explaining the truth, and refuting errors of misotheists and liberals, there would be no need for people like me and Rush.
You're being humorous, I hope, by putting Rush into that paragraph.....
64. EKB said the following at 10:28 AM on Apr 2:
Dr. Sarfati,
I'm completely for explaining Truth and refuting liberal errors, but I don't see a need to use such a harsh tone. Also, do you really think Rush is someone to model your speech after? It is questionable whether he attends church, and he has been divorced three times. I think there are much better people to emulate! I mean no disrespect, I am just curious as to why you think this method is so effective. For example, look at Pope Benedict XVI. He boldly stands up for the Truth, but tries to build rather than burn bridges.
I think I would agree with 99% of your politics, it is your tone that bothers me.
65. BDB said the following at 1:34 PM on Apr 2:
I was thinking about the issue of tone and came across an example of how tone gets into the way.
One publication I subscribe to, the Funny Times has an excellent collection of political cartoons. They tend to lean to the left. But good political satire often speaks the truth.
On their 10-year anniversary, the editors wrote a little bio explaining who they were. One item in their past is that they lost a child to Leukemia.
It reminded me of how George HW Bush and Barbara also lost a daughter, Lauren, to Leukemia. Yet buried in Barbara's memoir was a story about how demonstrators on the left were saying some pretty unkind things about how President Bush and Republicans didn't care about kids with cancer.
Her response: I'm sure they couldn't have known about Lauren.
Here is a prime example of how people from different parts of the political spectrum really do have things in common, but they're so busy hurling angry words at each other they don't listen enough to realize it.
66. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:02 PM on Apr 2:
The name of the little girl who died from leukemia was Robin Bush, not Lauren Bush.
Lauren Bush is the daughter of one of George W. Bush's brothers (can't remember which one) and was a fashion model.
67. BDB said the following at 3:17 PM on Apr 2:
Louise (#67) I knew I should have looked that up - not tried to do it from memory (from more than 10 years ago!)
Anyway, it's a true story.
68. Jethro said the following at 4:01 PM on Apr 2:
John, I will address you point by point.
Can you ever be specific, or do you just enjoy using big words to make yourself seem smarter than the person you are falsely accusing?
Sure, would you like to use some specificity yourself so that I can better understand what you actually want specifics on?
What exactly is "misdirected vitriol"? Does that mean there is "directed vitriol"? or "targeted vitriol"? Are you saying that sometimes vitriol is okay? How exactly does one "peddle" vitriol?
Okay. Dr Sarfati’s vitriol is misdirected, because he falsely impugns President Obama and the Democratic party as a whole. Falsely, because he attributes to them positions which they do not hold (socialism etc). You can indeed have directed or targeted vitriol. I believe Dr Sarfati directs his wrongly towards the wrong parties - see previous point. It vitriol okay at times? Probably yes. The good Dr certainly seems to think so – he uses it enough.
"A word to the wise here, citing an article or blog written by you is hardly a convincing form of persuasion. But that's really the point, is it not?" Are you here accusing Dr. Sarfari of purposefully trying to NOT be convincing? What would he gain from that?
My point is that Dr Sarfati is preaching to the choir and he knows it. No-one who does not already believe what he says is going to be convinced by self-referencing. If you don’t believe me, see my earlier post on exactly this point. It backs me up completely!
"Protected as you are by the Boundless moderators you may never see this comment. Of course that would just further my point." What is your point?
My point is that Dr Sarfati is protected by the Boundless mods. I have several times challenged the good Dr, or asked for specifics, and the mods have rejected my posts. I have emailed them about exactly that. I apologize for not cc’ing you.
How is the weather in your world where embassies are the property of the countries they are in instead of to the country they represent?
It’s a bit rainy actually. As you would know from my previous post, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does indeed confirm that embassies remain the sovereign territory of the State in which they are located. Have you found any treaty references to the contrary? Or is it just your opinion which says otherwise (an opinion that, last time I checked, carries no weight at International Law)?
What color is the sky in your world, Jethro?
Grey (see comment above re rain).
69. Al said the following at 4:14 PM on Apr 2:
Dr. Safarti said,
"Later on, in typical liberal victimitis and mimophantism, people used my challenge-riposte as an excuse. Yet it was clearly the content rather than the tone, which was mild compared to typical misotheistic and liberal hate-speech against Christians and conservatives."
Let me say that I am a conservative.
I agree in some part with most of your content. I'm not completely decided between young-earth-creationism, old-earth-creationism, and "theistic evolution". Consider this my personal weakness. However, I am very open to hearing good, compelling arguments in support of the former. Atheistic, materialistic evolution is philosophically and intellectually unworkable for me. Because I already have classic creationist sympathies, I may be amongst the easiest for you to persuade decisively. I found your initial articles on Boundless interesting, moderately persuasive, and they opened my mind up to helpful arguments I hadn't thought about in some time.
I am also very suspicious of the Obama administration and policies, and have been critical of his doublespeak especially in regards to abortion and the extreme spending billed as the stimulus package. It's extremely disconcerting that we elected a president who embraces some of the most extreme and liberal positions but is able to sell it to Americans at large by his charm and speaking abilities alone.
I have also affirmed repeatedly the appropriateness of sharp rebuke in specific circumstances as modelled out in biblical examples.
But I am *still* extremely bothered about your tone, Dr. Safarti. As are many others here who agree with your ideas in part but have also repeatedly confronted you about your delivery and the way you treat those who disagree with you.
So while some of your content may be unwelcome to some emotionally entrenched in their views-- and you should have expected this as an experienced apologist-- it is clear the greatest objections readers have here are in regard to your tone, perhaps first manifested when you chose to dress down a mere "schoolgirl" rather than bear with her in patience in hopes of elevating her ability and willingness to process your ideas.
Rather than reserving unflattering rebuke for those that closely match specific people and circumstances in Scripture, it seems you freely apply condescention to any you feel inclined to, especially if you suspect they might have liberal leanings or outwardly disagree with your ideas.
Your ability to at least thoughtfully consider corrections in tone after repeated objections here also reflects (accurately or otherwise) your ability to consider correction, improvement, and refinement of your scientific ideas when confronted with good arguments and evidence.
While it may be comforting for you to assume that those who take issue with your language do so only because of your content, that does not serve your ideas, your credibility, your readers or the truth, and I think it's been more than evident that it is undermining your ministry and passion here.
This will be my last post on the matter. It's my hope that you'll weigh and consider this before immediately crafting another post citing "challenge-riposte", or faulting "liberals" for your tone or its reception without acknowledging any excess of your own.
70. Al said the following at 4:26 PM on Apr 2:
Oh, and I used to listen to Rush. Then I stopped after realizing that the constant disrespect and character assasination he engages in, and his blaming of all things wrong on liberals runs completely counter to the gospel that points to the sin in each one of *us* as the problem and the contrition and humility it demands.
Rush is only effective in galvanizing anger and suspicion. Even as I still agreed with many of his positions, his methods have actually turned me off.
71. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:30 PM on Apr 2:
Well Al, I think we have already tried it your way for decades. And the result? A full third of professing evangelicals voted for the most pro-abort and pro-homosexuality, as well as anti–free-market, president in American history. Maybe it's time for a different approach: challenging these evils forcefully instead of compromise, tolerance and non-judgmentalism. It is also urgent for Christian parents to quit sending their kids to poorly performing pro-Dem government schools where they learn to make uninformed opinions and develop self-esteem divorced from achievement.
Jethro is just being paranoid, like a typical lefty. Some of my posts have also not made it through. Can't he find a group of fellow anti-Christians to rant on?
72. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:06 PM on Apr 2:
Al, on reflection, although we probably still don't agree, I appreciate your own tone and discussing the issues. Thank you for your trouble and good will, and I will consider your comments very carefully.
73. Al said the following at 4:44 PM on Apr 3:
Okay, my-really-last-post-on-the-topic.
"Well Al, I think we have already tried it your way for decades. And the result? A full third of professing evangelicals voted for the most pro-abort and pro-homosexuality, as well as anti–free-market, president in American history."
It's not exactly "my way". :) It's what seems proper in my examination of what the New Testament prescribes, without eliminating the place of harsh language in appropriate moments.
And I do agree that certain portions of truth has been soft-sold for decades. But at the same time, vitriolic language used in confronting social issues like abortion has also been around for decades-- and are some of the loudest public voices. That hasn't worked either. In fact, that sort of thing is the very reason that many people consider American Christians "mean-spirited", "hateful", "judgemental", and completely unworthy of giving ear to. There are movements today that are still trying to divorce themselves from the thoughtless words used by Christians in the near past, even though sometimes they err in the other extreme.
And I would say the very fact that Obama was elected says much about the power of civil, respectful, and articulate speech in the public square. If Obama was able to sell his ideas to those who would otherwise balk if his policies were looked at more closely, maybe we should consider taking a page from his book.
I don't think the solution to our issues is simply to speak louder and in more crass and disrespecting terms. I don't think it helps to avoid strong language altogether either. We all need to learn to articulate and speak well about these important issues and reserve the strong medicine for the moments that really require it.
I'm sort of curious. Have you tried witholding immediate rebuke from those that initially challenge or seem on the fence regarding your ideas? How did it (or didn't it) work out?
"Al, on reflection, although we probably still don't agree, I appreciate your own tone and discussing the issues. Thank you for your trouble and good will, and I will consider your comments very carefully."
Thank you so much Dr. Safarti for saying so. I really do appreciate it. That's really all I can ask, and for you to examine how well they line up (or don't line up) with all of Scripture. And if you did find the tone I've used helpful in our discussion, I suspect your readers and those you debate with will appreciate it when you employ something similar. It just might cause them to more carefully consider your content and arguments as well.
So thanks again for the discussion, and for taking th etime to hear me out.