Confrontational and argumentative

[Neil D]

Why is it that so many are quick to admit they are sinners but are so offended when someone points out one of their sins?

John 16:7-9

7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[a] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;

Since when is it a person's job to convict of sin? Let me answer this for you. It's not yours nor my job to tell others that something is a sin. That's the Holy Spirit's job. Hopefully, the HS will lead you to Christ, if you let Him.

But it does bother me when people go around and try to be like God and try to convict others that thier actions are "sinfull".

You know full well that all recievers of any pseudo-"conviction" automatically discounts any giver as on the same level as a chicken egg IF/WHEN they go around saying that they are God.

Well, when that same someone trys to convict [and takes the HS job away from Him], he becomes more than just a bit obnoxious. It's taking on God's powers and actually listening to the serpent say things like, "If you do this, this action will make you like God"...And then he tells you something really stupid. "By convicting the other person, it will make you feel righteous and you will have turned your brother." When in actually, you irritate the _ _ _ _ out of us.

[Woody]

...because that's no-one's job but the Holy Spirit's?

Good Point. I long ago gave up trying to figure out why people do what they do. Only God knows. Lucky for them .... HE is merciful.

[there buster]

Quote:

It is mildly less offensive to say 'your argument is the argument of a fool' than to say 'you are a fool', but it's still offensive, and IMO still falls under Jesus' condemnation of saying someone is a fool.

To say "That is a foolish argument," is not the same as either of the statements you noted. Everyone has made a foolish argument at one time or another; that does not make them a fool.

As someone has pointed out, going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than going to a garage makes one an automobile. Making a foolish argument doesn't make one a fool.

Making foolish arguments habitually, generally indicates a person who is in denial. But there can be other causes.

This distinction between who one is and what one does is crucial. Many gerontologists have noted that this mistake of identifying one's (or another's) self with what one does has devastating effects on the aged. If they believe "I am what I do," then as their abilities to do decline, so does their sense of personal value.

On a monthly basis, I submit my writing to others in a writer's club. They may say, "This sentence doesn't make sense," or "This paragraph didn't add anything to the scene."

Confronted with such feedback, I could retort, "Don't tell me I'm nonsensical," or "Don't tell me my writing isn't worth reading." Writing is very personal, but I am not simply what I write, and do not take criticism of that sort personally.

When a person says, for instance, "We can't let our lack of resources limit what we do for the poor," as one famous politician said some 40 years ago, that sentence was in fact foolish, since lack of resources will necessarily limit what one can do. It didn't make the man a fool, however. It just made his policies self-defeating.

[Bravus]

I understand all that and agree. But in the same way, someone who *continually* identifies others arguments as foolish, rather than actually address those arguments, could be fairly described as acting in a way that is confrontational and argumentative: the topic of this thread.

[there buster]

Confrontation is the nature of discussion. To disagree is to be confrontational. Probably the originator of the thread meant something different by that.

Argumentative is a little more nebulous. In a courtroom, argumentative means counsel is arguing with the witness, rather than questioning him. The time for that is during the "closing argument."

I suspect here it means "arguing for the sake of arguing," or perhaps, "making mountains out of molehills" in order to keep a dispute going.

The first requires divining motivation, something humans are notoriously poor at. The second is a matter of judgment, upon which people differ.

Probably they are attempts to describe something else, but which the poster finds difficult to articulate. Lots of things are like that.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Can someone explain it to me, and please talk to me like I am 6 years old, and tell me why some folks HAVE to be confrontational and argumentative in nearly every post?

AND do you think they see that in themselves?

It's a good question Stan.

I think there is a good illustration in nature which may help.

Have you seen this? Can you visualize it?

"Among some species of animals, if one of their number is wounded and falls, he is at once set upon and torn in pieces by his fellows.

"The same cruel spirit is indulged by men and women who bear the name of Christians. They manifest a pharisaical zeal to stone others less guilty than themselves. There are some who point to others' faults and failures to divert attention from their own, or to gain credit for great zeal for God and the church." (5T 59)

I think the picture is a strikingly real one.

But the right way to respond to perceived error is given in Galatians 6:1.

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, in case you are also tempted [to cut and bite]".

Approaching the person in a meek spirit means that we don't speak to the person in a superior tone. Our approach is meant to be just the opposite!

A meek approach means that we treat perceived offenders patiently and gently.

Many people just don't seem to understand the reality of this. The tendency is to "smite and slay" with the tongue, thinking that they are doing God a service.

_________________

Regards,

Stewart.