How To Respond To Christian Bullies

Sadly, Christians can become bullies, and often do when attacking other believer’s whom they disagree with, so if you’ve been bullied by other believers, read these to put it all into a godly perspective.

Bully Believers

Bullies are not just found on the playground…bullies can be found at work, at church, among friends, and even in the family, but we cannot respond in kind to how they treat us with their words; otherwise we’re doing just what they’re doing and lowering ourselves to their level. That’s something Jesus never did and is grieved when we do. We should be able to disagree but not be disagreeable. We don’t have to believe everything others do, but we must agree on the essentials like the divinity of Christ, His sinless-ness, and His death and resurrection, but far too often Christians minor on the majors and major on the minors, and we end up seeing them use the Word of God as a sword against one another, and using it in a way it was never intended. One example is the gift of tongues. One man told me that tongues is so divisive in the church and that gift can become so elevated (even above Christ) that it’s all they ever do or think about, and it’s almost as if they removed the cross and eliminated preaching Christ, and worshipping a giant tongue on the altar. He said they worship the gifts rather than the Gift Giver, and more than one person has told me, “If you haven’t spoken in tongues, you must not have the Spirit of God.” What good is this kind of debate?! No good, that’s what.

Persecuting Christ

When Jesus was telling Saul that he was persecuting Him, he must have wondered how that was possible because he’d been persecuting people of “the Way,” but Jesus told him that by his persecuting believers, he was actually persecuting Christ (Acts 9:4), because when you attack other believers, you are actually attacking Christ. Here’s the image many see today: The Bride of Christ is the church, so here she comes down the aisle…but something’s terribly wrong; her dress is torn, her sleeve’s ripped, her hair is a mess, she’s got a black eye and a bloody nose, and someone outside of the church says, “Well, it looks like the church has been fighting again!” How tragic. Instead of being a light or a lamp to the world, we putting to flames those who don’t agree with us. What a sad example we leave the world. Having written articles here, I find that most of the worst persecution comes from other believers, and Satan must be laughing with delight, but Jesus, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pet 2:23). Would it not be better to suffer wrong than to drag other believers into arguments over non-essentials, and some even taking them to court?

WestboroChurchPicketing

Leave it to God

The Apostle Paul once wrote, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head” (Rom 12:19-20). Later, Paul adds, “See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone” (1 Thess 5:15). Jesus told us that we are to pray for our enemies and do go to those who do bad things to us, and to “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27-28). Since we’re told to pray for our enemies and bless those that curse us, why do so many believers treat others who they don’t agree with, with contempt? So even though we’re to pray for our enemies, many end up saying hateful thing to believers. How this must grieve the heart of Christ Who is the Head of the Church? Again, Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:44-45). Even in the Old Testament we read, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18), but that and the other commands of Christ on loving others is often ignored if they don’t agree with someone. Of course in doctrinal errors such as Jesus not being sinless, we must disagree with, but in other areas that are not essential to salvation, why do believers sometimes get so vicious with their words?

Our Words Betray Us

Jesus said that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” (Matt 12:34), so our words can betray what’s in our heart. We can claim to be a believer, but if our words are not loving, we expose what’s really in our hearts, and we break Jesus’ commands to love one another in word and in deed. We have ignored the Apostle Peter’s admonition to “not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing” (1 Pet 3:9), and even though we’re told to “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29), some believers are better at tearing down one another rather than building one another up as we’re commanded to do (1 Thess 5:11). We sometimes treat our pets better than we do our sisters and brothers in Christ, and we know that “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). We might deny being a murderer, but our words are often anything but loving and often hateful, so “Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness” (1 John 2:9). By all means, “Do not say, “I will repay evil”; wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you” (Prov 20:22).

How to Respond

When non-believers berate you and call you all sorts of names, this is actually a blessing (Matt 5:11-12), and we should expect it (2 Tim 3:12), but “If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you” (1 Pet 4:14). Don’t you want that? So, “if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Pet 4:16), but sadly, the most painful persecutions come from the “religious” or “spiritual,” and professing Christians. Contrary to that type of behavior, Christ-followers are commanded, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28). How do we respond? We must pray for these believers who are berating other believers (and us!) over non-essential issues. Jesus prayed to the Father to forgive those who did not know what they were doing (Luke 23:34), so we must at least pray for them, and if they know what they’re doing, they need our prayers even more. Pray for them, ask God bless them, and prove to be the sons and the daughters of God (Matt 5:45). Hard? Yes…but love is the true test of the disciples of Christ (John 13:34-35; 1 Cor 13:1-7). You will know them by their fruits, not by their gifts!

Conclusion

Jesus says that others will know that we are His disciples if we love one another (John 13:34-35), but sometimes it’s hard to tell true believers from non-believers because they are not showing others that they love one another in their words…especially if the disagree about the tribulation, the rapture, the millennium, tongues, or you name it. We should “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph 4:32), instead of bantering back and forth over things that won’t matter in eternity. Do you have a bully in your life right now? Have you ever thought about praying for them? Maybe someone else has a bully in their life, and maybe it’s a believer, so why not share this with them right now so that they might repent of it and show the love of God with their words instead of using words to attack someone who they don’t agree with. I can see bullies being in the world, because they don’t have the Spirit of God…but for Christ-followers, we have no excuse. So the next time you hear criticism over what you believe or don’t believe, or someone else has issues with you, remember that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” (Matt 12:34), and our words reveal what’s in our heart. They can tear down or they can build up. The choice is yours, but remember, “for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Matt 12:26).

Article by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren Church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is a writer at Christian Quotes and also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book Teaching Children the Gospel available on Amazon.

"I can show it - I can't force people to pay attention. This is a ..."

Cats, Me, and God
"If you can't show it, you don't know it. Goggle "lunatic" Is he gay?"

Cats, Me, and God
"God is real, I know God deeply enough that it has referred to me as ..."

Cats, Me, and God
"That would be correct. There is nothing objective save for mathematics, logic and by definition. ..."

Cats, Me, and God

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Salvatore Anthony Luiso

    Regarding “Would it not be better to suffer wrong than to drag other believers into arguments over non-essentials, and some even taking them to court?”: What is “non-essential”? All doctrines that do no pertain directly to salvation? All doctrines that do not pertain directly to obedience to God? Something else?

    It can be worthwhile to discuss and have respectful arguments over all sorts of doctrines which are widely considered to be “non-essential”. Consider the subject of the gift of tongues, which you mentioned. If people are obsessed with it, and say “If you haven’t spoken in tongues, you must not have the Spirit of God”, could it not be good, loving, and profitable to have a respectful argument about the subject? I do not mean an argument with people who are unwilling to listen or to consider a different opinion–there are times when arguing is a waste of time. As you know, the church in Corinth lacked wisdom in the matter of spiritual gifts, and the Apostle Paul informed and corrected them in a letter. I think that if he were here today, he would oppose obsession with the gift of tongues, and oppose the notion that only people who have spoken in tongue have the Spirit of God.

    Consider also the very popular subject of prosperity. Is it essential for a Christian to understand that faith in Christ does not guarantee health and wealth before death? I don’t think so. However, it is potentially harmful for someone to believe that if he believes in Christ he will become healthy and wealthy. It can be harmful to the person who believes it, to people he misinforms, and to the reputation of Christianity.

    There are many other doctrines which people consider to be non-essential which are worth arguing about for various reasons. Many of them are connected to the doctrines of the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of the Scriptures. For example: There are professing Christians who say that the Israelite’s violent conquest of the Canaanites was not God’s will. This may seem to be a belief that has no bearing on salvation or obedience to God, but in fact it does, because it undermines faith in the Scriptures as the Word of God.

    • pud

      “The gift of tongues” LOL

      • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

        😛

    • Jack Wellman

      Yes..the gift of tongues, the rapture, mid-or post-trib rapture, etc. These are not hills to die for, are thy?

      • Salvatore Anthony Luiso

        Die for: No.

        Discuss: Why not?

        The teaching that the only people who have the Holy Spirit are those who have spoken with tongues is harmful. It is conducive to pride and to false manifestations of speaking in tongues. It causes some Christians to doubt that they have the Holy Spirit, and it can even cause someone to become frustrated with God. One may think: “All of my friends speak in tongues–why won’t God give me the Holy Spirit so that I can do it, too?”.

        Therefore, if someone who believes this false doctrine is willing to consider arguments against it which are presented in a respectful manner, then why not engage that person in a discussion about it? You might not only be able to help that person, you might be able to stop its spread to other people.

        Regarding the rapture: Based upon years of personal observation, it seems to me that many of the people who believe in it are obsessed with it, and are prone to making all sorts of false connections between biblical prophecy and current events. Those are two reasons why it is problematic–there are others. Again: If someone who believes it is willing to consider arguments against it which are presented in a respectful manner, then why not engage that person in a discussion about it?

        I wonder if in the future there will be any Christians who lose faith in God because they believe that He didn’t fulfill a promise to “rapture” the Church out of the world as they had expected–if some will think to themselves: “Why does it seem as if Christians and everyone have been ‘left behind’?”.

        • Jack Wellman

          Thank you. I agree that we can discuss these things and disagree, but we should not be disagreeable with one another. That’s the point of this article.

      • Dalia

        The gift of tongues. As we know there WAS the gift of tongues. And that was for one reason and one reason only…to reach others who spoke a foreign language with the gospel of salvation. Not for self edification. So who is giving the “gift” to these supposed speakers of tongues? They say the Holy Spirit gives it to them. Wouldn’t that be a lie? People who speak gibberish, roll all over the floor, bark like doggies, attribute all these to the Holy Spirit. Isn’t that blasphemy? We all would not want people to say we said things that we didn’t, or be the cause of someone’s actions when we are not. But people take extraordinary liberties with the Holy Spirit. Wow! So maybe I’m wrong, but I call it as I know it and studied it! When one of my friends tell me she speaks in tongues, I tell her it’s demonic. When my other friend starts getting jittery because the Holy Spirit is working in her so she bounces, I tell her to rid herself of the demons. What gibberish! Why are some of us soooo tolerant of these lies! Ugggg!!!!

  • Carlos Santiago

    Some of the bullies during the advent of Christianity were the Judiazers who judged the Gentile new Christians in to following the Old Testament laws. They were condemned by Paul.

    • Dalia

      Today they are the called the Hebrew roots movement

    • barry

      Peter had become a Judaizer, at least that’s what Paul says. Galatians 2:14.

      If you want an exercise in how presuppositions and faith can blind a person to biblical truth, read any conservative commentary on Acts and Galatians, and just watch at all the twisting in the effort of the commentator to distinguish James from the legalistic Judaizers Paul opposed in Galatians 2. Lightfoot was one of 19th century Christanity’s last words to Ferdinand Christian Baur, and yet even Lightfoot admitted Paul’s contradictions of thought (i.e., desire to be authoritative while fearing possible disapproval from the mother church) is why Galatians 2 was a “shipwreck of grammar”.

      • Carlos Santiago

        I agree on the first, however Paul never advocates the duty to judge others only to encourage the bounty of good fruit. Many confusions summarise the apparent contradiction by the statement “love the sinner and hate the sin”. What is an accurate summation of a Paul is “love the sinner and hate you own sin”. That is why he summarizes the law as a New Covenent “yoke” and never ever list judging others as a Fruit of the Spirit.

  • pud

    Bla bla bla infantile gibberish

    • Dalia

      Well, well, well…..This is the ONLY thing I can agree with you…it is gibberish!

  • Judgeforyourself37

    I have seen these bullies picketing a Planned Parenthood Clinic, that along with health care, does do abortions. Some of these same picketers have probably had abortions, as one in four women will have had an abortion before she is forty.

  • ROBOT

    How about the “Christian” bullies who abuse and cheat on their wives and use alcohol and meds as an excuse, and they tell their wives: “If you can’t forgive me, you’re going to hell because you committed the greater sin of unforgiveness.”

    • Zeke Krahlin

      They infest this nation like cockroaches…heck, they’re even running the Fed’ral Gummint now!

  • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

    As a non-believer, I only unleash when some Christian tries to bully me into something they think I should do. From attending their church to watching that atrocious Mel Gibson snuff film, I stand fast. Push me too far, and you’ll see my superpower; the ability to drive people into a mindless rage. Doesn’t happen often, but when it does it’s amusing.

    • Greg Paley

      Who are you kidding, girl?

  • christine gomez

    Absolutely right. There are Christians who thrive on bullying and enjoy persecuting the innocent with lies because they belong to a community that attracts crowds. These mean Christians not only deceive God but mislead the body of the Church and ultimately brings shame to the Church. Many believers run after soothsayers, diviners, sorcerers not knowing they are deceivers and not faithful to God’s word but just blinded to the truth. The Word of God cannot be manipulated for self centred agendas. The warnings given to the administrators of the Church are often ignored because the things of the world seem far more attractive. Jesus said you will reap what you sow. Wickedness and injustice will surely bring destruction. To remain holy the Church should not eat from the forbidden tree.

    • pud

      “christians” all live a make believe lie. “The forbidden tree” LOL

  • pud

    The real irony in this ridiculous essay is that YOU are the greatest “bully” of them all! You make your wretched living lying to children! You make a buck by intimidating them and others with your absurd threats to join your cult or suffer eternal torment! You pay your bills by peddling fear and guilt and shame for being a human being! Everything about you screams bully! It’s your way or no way! It’s your way or the celestial dictator will rain his wrath down upon you! Everything you babble is surrounded by blood and death and punishment and slavery to an invisible thing who has your flock under constant supervision…the very definition of totalitarianism! You don’t lift people up you subjugate them, you demean them, you seek to break them of their critical thinking ability and become a mindless brainless sheep in your flock. You’re no different than a communist dictator or any king or emperor that ever existed who demands that everyone subscribe to your warped view of reality or else! Give me a better definition of BULLY!

    • Jean Camille

      You hypocrite! You are the one who rejects science and logic when it does not suit your purposes (see “When The Scriptures Say ‘But God’” DEC. 18, 2017 Comments). Now you come out with hectoring, rash and lying generalizations, and call out others on bullying? Sorry, but you do not qualify to be taken seriously.

      • barry

        I think he/she had a valid argument: Bullying in Christianity can also take the form of attempting to scare others into heaven with threats of hell, bullying is not limited to personally disrespectful comments. A person believing themselves filled with the Holy Spirit could tell an unbeliever “If you reject the gospel, I’ll send you to hell” and this would be bullying.

        For that matter, its difficult to see the God of the OT as anything other than a bully. For despite his ability to magically cause even pagans to make correct freewill choices whenever He wants them to (Ezra 1:1), he apparently prefers to simply set out Israel’s options, and then complain and threaten when they disobey. God wanted to kill either Moses or his son, and the only thing that prevented it was Zipporah performing a quick, painful and bloody circumcision with a tool far less sharp than a scalpel, then throwing the foreskin at Moses with an attached insult. Exodus 4:24-25, what’s not “bully” about this particular god?

        • Jean Camille

          The topic is worth looking at, but he is not presenting an addressable argument. Compare it with your statement and you should readily see the difference.

          It is not a topic I have researched. What commentaries and resources did you use in forming your opinion?

          • barry

            Why would I need anything more than the bible? What’s the point of saying the bible is the authoritative inspired word of God, if the only way I can know what it is teaching, is through imperfect commentaries?

          • Jean Camille

            Some Christians would agree with you here. The mistake is clear, however, when you talk of Zipporah throwing the foreskin at (sic) Moses with “an attached insult.”

            You saw insult when she said “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me,” much as we might say, “Get that bloody dog away from the BBQ meat!” But that is not what it meant.

            In 1611, bloody meant “to do with, smeared in, blood.” We shake hands to seal an agreement. When we cut our palms and mix our blood with the handshake, that becomes a blood bond for life. God requires a blood bond from each male Hebrew to be part of His covenant. It is not from the hand (for work or action) but from the foreskin (for creativity and life itself); not for a lifetime but for eternity.

            When Moses failed to circumcise his son, he betrayed a sacred trust. Betrayal has always been punishable by death in warrior cultures and in extreme times.

            These days, God goes deeper still and requires “circumcision of the heart,” another discussion.

            God will not spoon feed us. Where we can work it out for ourselves, He leaves us to do so, or wear the consequences. We cannot afford to slack off.

            That is why I urge you to take your own questions seriously and do the proper research on them.

          • Jean Camille

            Some Christians would agree with you here. The mistake is clear, however, when you talk of Zipporah throwing the foreskin at (sic) Moses with “an attached insult.”

            You saw insult when she said “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me,” much as we might say, “Get that bloody dog away from the BBQ meat!” But that is not what it meant.

            In 1611, bloody meant “to do with, smeared in, blood.” We shake hands to seal an agreement. When we cut our palms and mix our blood with the handshake, that becomes a blood bond for life. God requires a blood bond from each male Hebrew to be part of His covenant. It is not from the hand (for work or action) but from the foreskin (for creativity and life itself); not for a lifetime but for eternity.

            When Moses failed to circumcise his son, he betrayed a sacred trust. Betrayal has always been punishable by death in warrior cultures and in extreme times.

            These days, God goes deeper still and requires “circumcision of the heart,” another discussion.

            God will not spoon feed us. Where we can work it out for ourselves, He leaves us to do so, or wear the consequences. We cannot afford to slack off.

            That is why I urge you to take your own questions seriously and do the proper research on them.

          • barry

            NO amount of research will cause me to give two shoots about a “god’ who requires genital mutilation. You did not answer the god-causing-rape problem I brought up from Isaiah 13. You merely opined that biblical language often characterizes what god is “allowing” as what god is “doing”, but you provided no argument for taking the biblical language that way.

          • Jean Camille

            1. So the snowflake rejects a god who required circumcision. Calling it “genital mutilation” makes it easier to put your personal comfort ahead of meeting a test of commitment. Because that’s the issue.
            I looked at the same information but with a different conclusion. If God required something like that of me, I would do it. The Christian iteration, circumcision of the heart, requires that we work to cut off all ungodly behaviours and attitudes. It is now a lifelong endeavour, not just a one-off event. So, yes, being a Christian would be too much of an inconvenience for the likes of you.

            2. “You did not answer the god-causing-rape problem I brought up from Isaiah 13.”
            Who do you think you are, expecting others to spoon feed you answers to all your questions? That kind of arrogance is both amusing and pathetic. I gave you an example of introductory research on Exodus 4:24-25. I was not “opining” but giving some search questions that might remedy your deep ignorance of Isaiah 13. So, no: if you genuinely want an answer to the Isaiah 13 question, you are capable now of getting it for yourself. Stop whingeing and do your own homework.

          • barry

            Jean Camille • a day ago
            1. So the snowflake rejects a god who required circumcision.
            ————you explode the irony meter when you characterize me as a “snowflake”, since this discussion was prompted by an article written by a Christian attempting to dissuade Christians like you from being bullies. Name-calling is an essential component of a bully.

            Calling it “genital mutilation” makes it easier to put your personal comfort ahead of meeting a test of commitment.
            ———And refusing to call circumcision “genital mutilation” makes it easier to keep pretending in your mind that the actual creator of the universe actually gives one flying fuck about such trifling issues of external appearance. The Egyptians practiced circumcision long before the Hebrews left Egypt, pretty obvious where they got the idea, its pagan.

            If God knows everybody’s heart already, he can know who his true followers are without needing to see them pass any
            “test”, and at that point, those he deems his true followers, having already been confirmed genuine by his own opinion, don’t need to sport any body modifications. As for the need for other sinners to see external signs that you belong to god, god can use the power of coercive telepathy he apparently uses in Ezra 1:1 on them, and they can then know, without needing to
            see external signs, who God’s other true followers are. And presto, if God was as efficient in the use of his power as welfare mothers are with their foodstamps at the end of the month, lots of really stupid unnecessary confusion could have been avoided by this god whom you think is all concerned about “truth”.

            “Because that’s the issue.”
            ———–Sorry, Exodus 4 and circumcision have nothing to do with how an allegedly loving God could cause men to rape women, as I charged in the case of Isaiah 13. Perhaps you’ll reply that because God gave you a tricycle last week in answer to prayer, it is clear that infralapsarianism is false. You bible quoters appear to know no limits when it comes to seeing
            non-existent connections, and there’s also no stopping you, that’s for sure.

            I looked at the same information but with a different conclusion. If God required something like that of me, I would do it.
            ————If you were one of the pagan men mentioned in Isaiah 13, would you have raped a Hebrew woman in accord with God’s sovereignty as threatened in 13:16-17?

            The Christian iteration, circumcision of the heart, requires that we work to cut off all ungodly behaviours and attitudes.
            ——–Your insulting jesting attitude, for example. See Ephesians 5:4. See also the article to which these comments are attached, you apparently missed it, or disagree with it.

            It is now a lifelong endeavour, not just a one-off event.
            ———–Theological evolution is typical of all ancient religions that still rear their ugly heads today. in the bad old days, God was a mean sadistic bastard who demanded blood and death for the slightest infractions. Today, you think the Holy Spirit empowers you if you spot a Twinkie on the way out the gas station. I’d say times have changed.

            So, yes, being a Christian would be too much of an inconvenience for the likes of you.
            ———-I was a Christian for 10 years and thoroughly entrenched in apologetics and conservative Christian commentaries the entire time. Inconvenience had nothing to do with my apostasy. But feel free to give the world even more evidence of your problematic tendency to draw self-serving broad conclusions about people whom you don’t know shit about. It explains why you think Christianity is true.

            2. “You did not answer the god-causing-rape problem Ibrought up from Isaiah 13.”
            Who do you think you are, expecting others to spoon feed you answers to all your questions?
            ———–I’m an atheist who assumed based on your Christian profession that you’ve actually read 2nd Timothy 2:24-26.

            24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
            25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
            26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim. 2:24-26 NAU)

            Perhaps you are one of those “inerrantists” who think the pastorals are non-canonical? Apparently so, since you’ve been violating that passage routinely ever since you started talking to me. There’s also the possibility that you are just dumb as a bag of hammers when it comes to the basic ethics of your own religion, but this being the internet, and you being anonymous, it isn’t likely the Holy Spirit will get very far asking you to be honest about how stupid you are to jump into the scholarly fire while still in Christian preschool.

            I know the bible perfectly well, thank you, I wasn’t implying in my statement that I was depending on you to figure
            something out for me, no more than I’m asking Mormons to figure things out for me when I ask them to explain the evidence that Joe Smith was a child molester. But your tendency to always interpret things in a way that make you seem smarter than others, is noted. Continue your delusion, this is a fun puppet show.

            That kind of arrogance is both amusing and pathetic.
            ————What’s amusing and pathetic is asking an atheist to find that Exodus 4 and circumcision can help interpret something in Isaiah 13. Earth to Jean: Atheists don’t believe in biblical inerrancy. Therefore, they are obviously not going to think something written by Moses helps reveal something written by Isaiah hundreds of years later, fool.

            I gave you an example of introductory research on Exodus 4:24-25.
            ————-which constituted your immediate violation of standard hermeneutics and common sense, both of which declare that the most likely place to find the author’s intended meaning of a phrase is from his own immediate context, not something written hundreds of years earlier by a different person. Exodus 4 is not part of the immediate context of Isaiah 13:16. Try
            again.

            I was not “opining” but giving some search questions that might remedy your deep ignorance of Isaiah 13.
            ———-And you completely ignored both the grammar and context of Isaiah 13 itself, and in some sort of delusional way, forgot for the moment that atheists don’t believe in biblical inerrancy, and hence do not think the picture of God’s ways in Exodus 4 has jack shit to do with anything in Isaiah 13, fool. You never demonstrated I was ignorant of anything in Isaiah 13 in the first place.

            So, no: if you genuinely want an answer to the Isaiah 13 question, you are capable now of getting it for yourself.
            ———Then let me set the record straight: I wasn’t seeking answers to Isaiah 13 anymore
            than you are seeking answers when you pose a question to an atheist. My question was a challenge, you clearly
            failed it, even worse than some of the more rabid fundagelicals in this wasteland. Use Exodus 4 to understand something in Isaiah 13 (!?)

            “Stop whingeing and do your own homework.”
            ———–Get off the drugs and quit telling atheists to do things that only inerrantists do, like using one part of the bible to interpret a completely different part, fool. And read the author’s article that gave rise to these comments again, apparently, you are totally clueless about how unbiblical Christian bullying is.

          • barry

            this is the second time now that somebody or some machine has decided that my replies to you are too comprehensive and thus deserve to be deleted, so since this place doesn’t facilitate discussions of a truly scholarly level, but appears to have more in common with rednecks gossiping at a bar, I will no longer respond to you here. My blog is https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-challenge-to-lee-strobel-isaiah-1313.html

            You can respond there, and we won’t have to worry about some person or machine deciding to delete posts without specifying an objective reason for doing so. There is a total character limit imposed by blogger.com which is not my fault, and if that concerns you, I’ll meet you in any email or internet forum of your choosing to discuss why I accuse the biblical god of being a brutal hypocritical tyrant created by the imagination of ancient brutal hypocritical tyrants, a god who authorized that which we today define as rape, murder and pedophilia. Given that i am limited to the internet to converse with you, you cannot expect to see a clearer sign that I’m ready and willing to discuss any apologetics argument or criticism you have. Whatever argument you think most convincingly proves God’s existence or Jesus’ divine sonship, I’d really love to see it. Just remember that if you slither out of this debate challenge, whatever excuse you use thereto, you will be required to accept also from skeptics who use the same excuse to slither away from YOUR debate challenges. That’s what fairness requires. I suggest you also study up on the obvious meaning of 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 before you allow the Holy Spirit to “tell” you how good it is to insult those whom you deem to be blinded by Satan and their own stupidity.

          • Jean Camille

            Re false positives by spambots, I’m ticked off with it too. Just opened a discussion on the Disqus discussion page about it. Hope the techies can do something about it.
            Other stuff, more later.

          • Jean Camille

            Barry, on the issue of how Christians should talk, I placed my response directly under the article.

            For now, what puzzles me is why you were so one-sided in your view. Here, you site Timothy but ignore the 18+ times Jesus lambasted the Pharisees, the harsh words he had for Peter and the Canaanite woman; the blunt, straight talk of John the Baptist and Paul, and even Peter at Pentecost. As a Christian of ten years and much study, surely you know of these and how they complete the meaning of scripture.

            Why did you ignore them?

          • barry

            If you think there’s an exception in 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 that allows today’s Christians to disobey that verse, that’s YOUR burden, and you aren’t fulfilling it by merely carping that Jesus and Paul insulted their own enemies. You are blindly assuming that “if Jesus did it, I can do it”, and that doesn’t follow logically, so you have to make argument that Jesus’ insulting language is something that a Christian “should” imitate.

            I am an atheist. I do not believe in biblical inerrancy. I do not automatically assume that any interpretation that will harmonize two passages is always better than an interpretation that says they contradict each other.

            Furthermore, my position doesn’t require 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 to contradict Jesus’ rough language to his own enemies…you never made the case that the way Jesus talked to his enemies is something Christians today SHOULD imitate in the first place. The great qualitative differences between you and Jesus would counsel caution before you just go out and mimic whatever you find him doing.

            The argument that today’s Christians should imitate whatever characteristic of Jesus they wish to imitate, involves far more unproved assumptions, than the argument that says you are required to do whatever the NT requires of all Christians.

            If you wish to claim biblical exceptions to 2nd Timothy 2:24-26, then because the passage itself doesn’t name any exceptions, proving them is YOUR burden, which you haven’t fulfilled yet. You need to worry more about what IS commanded of you, and worry less about the exceptional situations that require you to go beyond the express biblical wording into debatable inferences that other Christians would not agree with you about.

            That will my be last response to you here. Either reply at my blog, listed above, or have a nice life.

          • Jean Camille

            I am happy to revisit your blog and be the first to comment there, after leaving a comment for my brethren here.

            Barry misreads my posting (placed directly under the main article) if he thinks I am talking about exceptions. In fact, he ignores my background point that individual circumstances require individualised responses.
            He falsely assumes the actions of Jesus are an exception rather than the main game.
            He falsely assumes this whole issue of discourse can be contained within the 65 words of the English language quote.
            He ignores the explicit instructions of Jesus and the apostles that we imitate them.
            And still he does not enlighten us on how he justifies ignoring so much information.

            Very well. Here’s my explanation. This kind of narrow focus is often a by-product of our Western education that rewards extreme specialisation. We need focus to gain high grades, to find new insights in research. That kind of focus does not come naturally; we must work at it. We forget the role of serendipity, lateral thinking and other aspects of discovery. Narrow focus becomes too much of a habit.
            Second, we assume too much of the thinking styles that gave us sky scrapers and moon rockets. One philosopher said the only people assured of truth are engineers: If it stays up they got it right; if it falls down, they got it wrong. The rest of us must be content with a degree of inference. Those who assume tight logic is all we need for truth have overlooked one point: logic is like a computer; the output is only as reliable as the input. Deciding what to input requires working assumptions and criteria for selection. Deductive logic alone is unworkable.

            Barry insists that 2 Tim 2:24-26, the “principle”, stand alone and not be modified by “exceptions” (because we have no “proof” in the 65-word text that there is anything else to consider). The 60-mph sign on freeways does not mention any exceptions, so may I maintain speed and ignore accident scenes, road works or police points? Hardly. There are many background matters to consider. Our real world is more than deductive logic.

        • Jean Camille

          Are you sure you have understood Exodus 4:24-5? According to the commentaries, Zipporah’s comment was not an insult, but more seeking assurance that her son would not be swept up in the judgement coming on the Pharaoh and his people.

          In fact, the whole idea of God as bully is ill-conceived. It would arise only in a pampered group like our first world, euro-derived society. Contrast Babylon where palace eunuchs were completely dismembered. A gold rod was inserted to keep the urethra open during healing. If that failed and the urethra sealed, the eunuch died a slow and painful death. Compared with their world, we are a bunch of snowflakes.

          We need to keep such differences in mind before jumping to conclusions.

          • barry

            Your God causes pagan men to rape women. Isaiah 13:13-18, esp. v. 16. You are ill-advised to say today’s women are snowflakes.

            But if you don’t, then you’ll have to find a way to say God’s causing rape is a good thing (when apologists like Frank Turek are always setting forth rape as an absolute immorality), or else follow common sense and restrict Isaiah’s views to his own delusional skull.

          • Jean Camille

            You are right. To even raise the idea of normalising rape is offensive and stupid. By comparison, to create a false dichotomy is merely shallow minded. Do you live the rest of your life in a two dimensional world? Please do some research and at least become aware of what is going on here.

          • barry

            What is two-dimensional about asking you, who think all of God’s actions are “good”, to explain God’s causing rape in Isaiah 13?

            Or maybe your classifying that challenge to your God’s goodness as “two-dimensional” is just a fancy way to duck the challenge without losing face? Apparently so, since you didn’t provide an answer on the merits. Please do so.

          • Jean Camille

            My apologies for the confusion. The issue is not two dimensional. You are.

            With Exodus 4:24-25, you started well with a specific reference. Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the text. As soon as this became clear, you skipped to Isaiah 13:13-18. You ignored 1 frame of reference, 2 surrounding conditions, 3 authorship issues, among other dimensions.You claimed a contradiction in a good God “causing” rape, as if that were the only way to construe the situation. This is a false dichotomy, a form of intellectual bullying.

            I had to spell out this because you show no knowledge of the research process. I am deeply disappointed in you, not because you lack knowledge but because you lack the humility and common sense to work from your true starting point.

            This is a sticking point. Until you are able to respect the place of research and study, I cannot have a fruitful discussion with you.

            For those with an open mind: this question is a variant on “How can a good God allow evil?” Here, the evil is military rape.

            God put us here to care for the earth. As we do not pull weeds for the gardener, so, God is not doing our job for us, especially as we declined his guidance anyway.

            The barbaric practice of military rape reinforces victory by imposing the victors’ genes on the defeated. Armies do this to the present day. It is part of the gruesome world humanity has made.

            By contrast, God gave the Hebrews the safety of following His directions. In Isaiah’s time, they had stepped out of the safe practices of God. Consequently, they became subject to the practices of the world they stepped into. That included vulnerability to the obscenity of military rape.

            The same applies today. If we want to promote an ethical and safe world, we need to change our heart attitudes to follow the example of Jesus Christ. Outside of Christ, it is much harder to protect those we love.

          • barry

            My apologies for the confusion. The issue is not two dimensional. You are.

            ———–On the contrary, you haven’t refuted my exegesis or interpretations, you simply provide a list of alleged blunders I committed, but with no detail. Such is the mark of superficiality. If I gave a similarly non-detailed list of blunders you allegedly committed, you’d spot the problem immediately.

            With Exodus 4:24-25, you started well with a specific reference. Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the text.
            ————-Unfortunately, it’s hard to take seriously the person who accuses me of misinterpretation, but who, like you, refuses to provide the reasons why. Your list of my alleged blunders doesn’t constitute a refutation of my interpretation or exegesis.

            As soon as this became clear, you skipped to Isaiah 13:13-18.
            ———-No, I didn’t “skip” to anything, I only brought up another passage. I’ll discuss anything in Exodus 4 if you wish to provide a counterargument that gives me something to respond to. Your confident generalized assertions that I committed various and sundry errors, do not constitute giving me a “counterargument” to respond to. In Exodus 4, the Lord wanted to kill somebody, and a mother using a dull cutting instrument to circumcise her son is the basis the text gives for the Lord no longer wishing to kill that somebody. And you don’t see the problem?

            You ignored 1 frame of reference, 2 surrounding conditions, 3 authorship issues, among other dimensions.You claimed a contradiction in a good God “causing” rape, as if that were the only way to construe the situation.
            ———-If you feel you can provide more reasonably justified exegesis or interpretation of those passages in Isaiah 13, feel free to do so. Rape during war is discussed in Isaiah 13, and that chapter also indicates who caused the men to commit those rapes. But apparently you prefer grandstanding to counterargument. Well if it keeps you from committing crime, grandstand all you wish.

            This is a false dichotomy, a form of intellectual bullying.
            ————-I’ve only offered my interpretation and so far, you haven’t provided a counterargument, you simply carp that there are other ways to “construe the situation”. That’s a paper thin disguise you’re wearing.

            I had to spell out this because you show no knowledge of the research process.
            ———–Then perhaps your motive arises from your tendency to jump to conclusions. Isaiah 13 identifies the person who causes men to rape women. One need not know much about “research process” to figure out who the context is crediting as the cause of rape. I also don’t know much about newspaper editing and media politics, but I’m pretty good at deciphering who’s who and what’s what in a New York Time editorial. Unless you claim the English translation of Isaiah 13 I used is problematic, there’s not going to be a whole lot of difference. ISIS stirs up village turks to make war, and God stirs up the Medes to rape Hebrew women.

            I am deeply disappointed in you, not because you lack knowledge but because you lack the humility and common sense to work from your true starting point.
            ———I started from the question of grammar and context. If you have any other suggestions of hermeneutics, feel free to name them.

            This is a sticking point. Until you are able to respect the place of research and study, I cannot have a fruitful discussion with you.
            ——-Then it might behoove you to state in detail the starting point you think I fallaciously ignored as well as the “frame of reference” and all those other issues you generalized about.

            For those with an open mind: this question is a variant on “How can a good God allow evil?” Here, the evil is military rape.
            —————-Stop changing the subject. The issue is not how a good God can allow evil. The question is who Isaiah 13 says causes men to rape women. Apparently you are so frightened of the obvious answer that you tried to changed the subject from what the proper interpretation of Isaiah 13 is, over to how a good God can allow evil. If you aren’t afraid of exegesis, then tell me whom Isaiah 13 is crediting as causing men to rape women. We don’t need to figure out how a good God can allow evil, in order to properly understand Isaiah 13.

            God put us here to care for the earth.
            ————I’m an atheist, I disagree with your presupposition.

            As we do not pull weeds for the gardener, so, God is not doing our job for us, especially as we declined his guidance anyway.
            ———–speak for yourself, plenty of sinners succeed in becoming righteous in God’s sight by their own efforts (Luke 1:6), so your generalization about how humanity declined God’s guidance, is fallaciously hasty. But by all means…feel free to disagree with your own favorite holy book.

            The barbaric practice of military rape reinforces victory by imposing the victors’ genes on the defeated.
            ———And your god could have dissuaded the pagans in Isaiah 13 from raping Hebrew women, by flipping the divine telepathy switch. See Ezra 1:1. Sure is funny that God appears to be capable of successfully motivating even unbelievers to do what he wants, if he really wants to.

            Armies do this to the present day. It is part of the gruesome world humanity has made.
            ————-And in Isaiah 13, the person responsible for causing me to rape women, is identified. The great day of the fury of the Lord (v. 13), in which God claims to “stir up” the Medes against the Hebrews, v. 17, and in that context is precisely when such pagan men rape Hebrew women (v. 16). I think this is the part where you educate the readers and myself by “explaining” that sometimes, immediate context is completely worthless for purposes of understanding authorial intent.

            By contrast, God gave the Hebrews the safety of following His directions.
            ———–Sorry, but I have serious problems with the idea that an intelligent creator of the entire universe could be so trite and petty as to be so incensed at his people worshiping false gods. You cannot explain this by saying God is infinitely holy since a) that would imply God would think avoiding creating any freewill creatures is better than creating them, and b) the bible doesn’t allow that God is infinitely holy, since he makes mistakes and ends up regretting his own prior decisions (Genesis 6:6-7, see immediate context, this is not a hymn or a psalm nor figurative, so because the immediate context is talking about literal factual realities, so are verses 6-7).

            In Isaiah’s time, they had stepped out of the safe practices of God.
            ——–I concur that the basis of God’s wrath in Isaiah 13 is the rebellion of the Hebrews against their own religious beliefs. That does nothing to help you do your job (i.e., explain why you continue viewing the bible-god as a “loving” god, when Isaiah 13 makes perfectly clear that God does something that is totally contradictory to any sensible definition of love…causing men to rape women). I think this is the part where you murmur something about God’s ways being mysterious. I think this is the part where I remind you that because you never accept the “god’s-ways-are-mysterious” excuse when it is employed by “heretics” to get their own asses out of a theological jam, fairness requires that I not accept that excuse from you either.

            Consequently, they became subject to the practices of the world they stepped into.
            ———Excuse me, but as an atheist, I care more about the specific wording of the biblical text I’m dealing with, and a lot less about the far more politically correct language you conjure up in your effort obfuscate the harsh theological reality there in Isaiah 13.

            That included vulnerability to the obscenity of military rape.
            ———Once again, the question is not what happened, but Who caused it to happen. Hebrew women were raped. Why? Because it was the great day of the Lord’s fury against them, and He was replying to their idolatry by “stirring up the Medes” against them. Sorry, but Isaiah’s language is crediting those rapes directly to God’s causal influence. Once again, there’s a good reason why today’s Christians never credit God with evil as directly as do the biblical prophets. The god of today’s Christians isn’t the god of the biblical prophets. Today’s Christian god doesn’t “stir up” foreign people to rape female war victims, today’s Christian god only “allows” evil. No thank you, I’ll take the biblical wording over your more politically correct “explanations”.

            The same applies today. If we want to promote an ethical and safe world, we need to change our heart attitudes to follow the example of Jesus Christ. Outside of Christ, it is much harder to protect those we love.
            ———I’m not interested in your advice for making the world a better place, I’m only interested in whether it is reasonable to say Isaiah 13 is crediting God directly with causing pagan men to rape women. I’m also interested in why you think “skipped” away from Exodus 4, when so far you’ve provided no counterargument to suggest my interpretation of its statements about God wanting to murder somebody merely due to lack of circumcision, were wrong.

          • Jean Camille

            Your response to my “My apologies …” has disappeared it seems. I cannot find it anyway. The spam bot is savage with any amount of pre-typed cut and paste. I have to re-type almost all of it.

            “you haven’t refuted my exegesis or interpretations”. If you think that is exegesis, you are mistaken. For a basic introduction to Ex. 4:24-25, we need go only as far as Wikipedia “Zipporah” and “Zipporah at the inn”. Also, “Zipporah May be Obscure, but the Wife of Moses Mattered” at usnews.com.

            The consensus is that Moses was likely in breach of the covenant with God by not having his son circumcised. Thereby, he was subject to execution and he was unfit to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt. His wife realised the problem and quickly remedied it. God was fully just in maintaining the purity of His work.

            We Western snowflakes are shocked that God would take a contract so seriously.

            When you judge God to be a bully, you fail to discern the proper use of coercive authority. E,g., when police raid a crack house, they are likely to “harm, intimidate, or coerce” the occupants, but that is not bullying. That is a necessary part of the job when dealing with recalcitrant criminals. Look at human history. we are no better for our stubborn refusal to accept accountability.

            We have been told we all have turned from God and fall short of His glory, that the consequence of cutting off from Him is death, both spiritually and eventually, physically. If we follow Jesus Christ, we have a quick remedy.

            But who cares? Very few are like Zipporah. It is too easy to blame God or anyone else for the woes we collectively bring on ourselves. If you believe “God” owes you anything, you are suffering from over-entitlement.

            Now that I have done your homework for you on Exodus 4:24-25, perhaps you will research Isaiah 13:13-18 for yourself. When the King James version says God will “cause” men to rape women, what does that mean in our terms? How many ways can that be taken? Why can modern versions rephrase that text and still say it is the same? How were Isaiah’s audience treating their contract with God? How does the Isaiah text fit the accounts in Deuteronomy outlining the benefits and liabilities of the contract?

            Or will you weasel your way out of this one too?

  • Linguagroover

    Christianity is predicated on bullying. Its god is an invisible invented merchant of hyperconditional love. So it is hardly surprising that it breeds a culture in which bullies thrive. D’oh.

    • pud

      The ultimate abusive celestial wife beater

  • james warren

    Pull the many layers off a bully and you will find fear and anxiety. Of course hardly anyone can admit to that [I am fortunate indeed that I myself can!] but the underlying intention of a bully is to protect a tender heart by using blame and pejoratives to deflect the inner pain of his/her own defensiveness.

    • Gregory Anchors

      “Christian bullies”? U mean those Stalinist pigs who killed Catholics during the Spanich civil war? Oh,wait;they were atheists. How do we kill all the atheists? Seems much more worthwhile.

      • james warren

        No. I’m talking about normative Christians who worship Christ on a pedestal instead of actually following Jesus’ teachings.

        I am a Christian who tries to follow the God I see in Jesus. Killing is satanic in my view.

        • Gregory Anchors

          Of course ur “Christian”,dufus. I bet ur as Christian as Obama,who spent 20 yrs attending a Church run by the Satanist monkey Rev. Wright. I bet ur THAT kind of Christian.

          • Chump Trump

            Greggy worships at the Church of Satan. Hes convinced hes the antichrist for the stupid Trump supporters.

          • Zeke Krahlin

            If he supports Trump, then isn’t he a /servant/ of the antichrist? Nitpicking here, I know.

          • Chump Trump

            Lol

        • Jack Wellman

          Exactly Mr. Warren. Trying to blame us for the past of which we were not there is like trying to blame the Irish immigarants (to the U.S., mostly) for the Potatoe Famine. The truth sets you free…or it makes you really mad. Even so, out of this comes a blessing (Matt 5:10-12) as I pray for these non-believers, but in my experience, most non-believers are not as extreme as this. I do like your comment about following His teachings.

      • Chump Trump

        The Catholics supported Franco you stupid inbred.

        • Gregory Anchors

          Right,dildo. And Canadians supported Stalin. And Castro. Why do u think I hate u idiots so much?
          Kill yourself & make a “good” Canadian.

          • Chump Trump

            You dumb-fuk the USA gave Stalin more war supplies during world war two than any other country.

            Uneducated dik-head.

          • Zeke Krahlin

            He’s a dumb-fuk alright…doesn’t even bother to google the Spanish Civil War, to find out the facts.

          • Chump Trump

            The guy is a total-retard. He failed history while reading comics.

          • obamabeenlyin

            Ah,but I beat yo mama to death. I learned how to do that from a comic-book.

          • Chump Trump

            Oh looking another Trump supporting psycho.

          • Chump Trump

            Greggy its almost Valentine’s Day. Do you have flowers and chocolate for your gay love the Shadow.

          • Gregory Anchors

            Retarded bitch Canadian.

          • Chump Trump

            Greggy we know youre a loser and a fucking-retard.

          • Chump Trump
          • Chump Trump

            Oh Greggy do i get a Valentine’s card.

      • Zeke Krahlin

        I never heard of no “Spinach civil war”…was Popeye in it, and whose side was he on?

        • Gregory Anchors

          Yes,retard. Popeye was in the Spinach civil war with yo mama. He spent the whole war up in her ass. That was where her brains were. She told him that’s where yours are, too.

          • Zeke Krahlin

            Okay, snowflake.

  • Zeke Krahlin

    What a load of hogwash. Who does the author think he is, talking down to non-Christians, declaring they should behave like Christians., too…that they accommodate the nonexistent words of this nonexistent deity…words and interpretations which change at the whim of Christian leaders? The mistake the writer made, is by coming off as a better-than-thou supremacist to anyone who does not follow his own, arrogant beliefs. And, even in advising Christians to be silent in such conflicts, to remain smug at heart. These Christian bullies are often threatening and violent, and deserve to be put in their place, by any means possible. They are a dangerous threat to society. They are fascists.

    • Jack Wellman

      Wow. And I am deemed a danger to society?? Your comment makes it seem to be just the opposite. You are accusing me of “talking down” to believers while you do the same to me. Hypocrisy is what they call that.

      • Zeke Krahlin

        You’re not a well man, Jack Wellman. Mine isn’t the only post condemning your article. Like many Christian zealots, you’re not very intelligent.

        • Jack Wellman

          Thanks for your reply Mr. Krahlin.

          • Zeke Krahlin

            Oh, any time. I always enjoy confronting Christian snakes in the grass…they’re all over the place!

      • Zeke Krahlin

        “Christian Crier” is the wrong name for this venue…more appropriate would be “Christian Crybaby.” I notice you don’t bother to pick an argument with anyone else on this page, who has a bone to pick with you. C’mon, go ahead, it’ll be fun!

    • Thela Ginjeet

      “The mistake the writer made, is by coming off as a better-than-though supremacist to anyone who does not follow his own, arrogant beliefs.”

      You mean better-than-thou.

      • Zeke Krahlin

        Of course. Anything else trivial you’d like to say?

        • Thela Ginjeet

          No. You’ve pretty much said it all. However, you might want to check your grammar before accusing accusing someone else of being not very intelligent, it doesn’t help your case…just saying.

          • Zeke Krahlin

            No I’m not “accusing accusing” someone of not being intelligent, I’m simply “pointing pointing” out the obvious. Furthermore: I am not looking for anyone or anything to “help” my case…it stands alone perfectly fine, with or without dim-bulb Jebus ass lickers such as yourself. Question: are you ever capable of commenting non-trivial ideas? The answer seems to be “no.” Maybe you should try again, sweetheart.

          • Thela Ginjeet

            Lol.

  • barry

    James Patrick Holding is one of the most slanderous of today’s Christian “apologists”. I was wondering how Wellman would respond to Holding’s magnum opus defense in favor of today’s Christians belittling and insulting their critics:
    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

    I was the guy that sued Holding for libel, twice, and Holding paid more than $20,000 in lawyer fees over the space of a year, exploiting technical trifles of the law like “jurisdiction” in his effort to avoid having to answer my lawsuit on the merits. If a Christian committed genuine libel, would Jesus want them to honestly admit the truth in a court of law, or would he want them to employ whatever tricks were invented by non-Christian lawyers that enable them to escape having to answer the charges on the merits?

    I answered Holding’s article here:
    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html

    • Jean Camille

      I think it unfair to ask comment on a specific law case, even in its hypothetical re-frame as you gave it.

      The issue, however, is worthwhile.

      I agree that abuse is not Christian, and neither is smutty language or the ill-discipline of “swear words”. The quotes you gave are an affront to the Holy Spirit and I share your distress that a “Christian” should behave so.

      It is also a pity that the idea of “challenge/riposte” should be so abused. It is new to me and gives me a frame of reference for why we value a witty remark more than deeper comments without flair. I think we need to engage robustly, but with genuine incisiveness.

      Unknowingly, I have used the idea when applying Prov. 26:5. Your work reminds us to counterbalance with Prov. 26:4

      Thank you.

    • Jean Camille

      May I ask a favour?

      Thank you very much for posting two sides of this issue. I value what you have given us here. I hope to learn from it how to respond to a certain group of people, those who seem to deliberately sow confusion.

      In the light of your concerns, will you please comment on my postings in Christian Crier article, “North And South Korea Unite – For A Time”, FEB 9, 2018?

      Blessings

  • theresa kage

    Christians wake up!
    First I would like to say I am not against any race or religion, I believe all should be treated equally with dignity. What I am against is an agenda. Many of you are being fooled, thinking you are supporting a certain religion when it’s really an agenda. How many of you have ever read your bible? It couldn’t be any clearer, “synagogue of satan”. Christians are basically racists, bigots and isolationists. You think because you believe in Jesus, and because some person on the stage that is getting paid to be there, tells you, you are the only true religion, that it’s true. Every major religion believes in Jesus and thinks that they are right. You can’t even agree among yourselves what is true, there are over 250 different types of Christianity. How many of you are 501(c)3 churches? If you are you are a government organization, and there are many things your actor can’t say. Think about what things you are no longer allowed to say. God said He would cause a great delusion over people, do you really think you aren’t being deceived? God said no graven image, how many churches proudly display the cross or have false images of the Savior? How many of you wear crosses, or have a cross on your bible? Would you proudly display a shot gun if that was how Jesus was murdered? Think you still have freedom, go on-line and see how quickly you are tracked if you go to a controversial site, and find out who is really doing the tracking.
    Where in the old testament did David ever have a banner? What flag is constantly being thrown in our face, (six sides, six points, six triangles) instead of the American flag which should be displayed upside down, as we are a nation in distress. Do we really believe we are a nation that thinks all men are free? Sing the third verse of the national anthem, then think that. A Jewish person and a Zionist are to very different things. How often does the news show the Jewish people burning the Zionist flag, and them stating that they are illegally occupying Palestine? How often does your actor preach on the genocide that is happening there? How many special offerings have been for the God loving Jesus believing, Arab people that we have dropped tons of depleted and enriched uranium on, murdering millions, many of are own soldiers. Iraqi women are having so many severely deformed babies that they are advised never to get pregnant again. But we are told they are the terrorist. Iran is now the terrorist, but look how many of our military bases surround them, us telling a sovereign nation they can’t defend themselves. How many more of our children will be murdered defending a lie??? Tell me you care for humanity, while you watch 1,000’s starve to death every day, and believe all this is Gods wish, while you sit in your apathy and think you are righteous. God bless America? What does that even mean? This is a big earth, why would God only bless a nation, whose entire structure is based on lies!
    How often do we hear about the so called “6 million”, but we never hear about all the American or Chinese that were ,murdered? We think we are hero’s, liberating a group of people, while we put our own Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, stripping them of all their rights, or a trial by jury, just because their parents or grandparents were born in a different country. Perhaps we should learn what real love, mercy and justice is.
    America is broke, we can’t afford health care, rebuild our infrastructure, or get our homeless off the streets. We are so in the red, that the only way we will ever survive is to have the whole fake system fall apart, unite as a people and start from day one, and really finding out who God is. Yet we give the Zionist billions of dollars, weaponry, complete support, and veto every time the UN wants to inspect their nuclear weapons.
    Think about it: Would your God really want the Zionist to gain Palestine by deceit, theft, and genocide?
    I realize this entire e-mail is completely politically un-correct, what ever that means. I no longer care. I would rather die fighting for what is right and true, than living a pathetic life full of lies.

  • barry

    you may have heard about the lawsuit an atheist filed against a
    Christian apologist, for libel and defamation.

    That atheist was me,
    I’ll be suing Christian bully James Patrick Holding for a third time, see my request to
    him to preserve evidence at

    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/03/third-lawsuit-against-james-patrick.html

    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/james-patrick-holding-formerly-robert.html

    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html

    • Jean Camille

      Barry, stay away from this fellow. He will be nothing but pain for you. And to no good purpose.

      In the video you directed us to, James’s disdain does not amount to bullying, but I agree, his attitude is not Christian. He is nothing like Paul who spoke his hard words to stimulate reform and growth. James’s hardness makes him impervious to your cause, even if you were to win the court case.

      Do you imagine that he can flourish with that attitude? Give it time. His own disdain and scorn will wither him from the inside. He will become an empty shell. Eventually, a gust of fate will blow him over and leave nothing but dust. That is the way of life. You need not concern yourself with him.

      My concern is that, to put vinegar into his coffee, you yourself must drink from the same pot. Whatever bitterness you can inflict in court, the same will be reinforced in you by your actions. And you are carrying more than enough already. Clearly, you have experienced extreme abuse, being effectively spat upon by the very people who should have supported you. More of the same will not help.

      Get out of there as far and as fast as you can.

  • Jean Camille

    TECHNICAL POST Jack, a couple of us are getting our posts rejected as spam. In my profile, there is a note that it is being checked, but none of my posts are reinstated. In the end, they just disappear. It is frustrating to try for a thoughtful contribution only for it to be rejected by a machine.
    In Disqus, they write in part that the algorithm checks for spam-like text. But the spammers are trying to get their text to look normal. So, we can expect the spam bot to get more false positives as the spammers get better at writing.
    You will not have time for this yourself, but as a host. can you please look into this, for some way of having these spam detections moderated by a human being?

  • Jean Camille

    Who are these bullies? Are they Christians? I think not. Remember, the Lord allows tares to grow among the wheat. He knew about Judas but did nothing to remove him.

    One group of “tares” are spiritual antagonists who join churches specifically to stir doubts and dissension. Any number of You Tube videos instance these.

    Others are self-serving people attracted to anyone willing to give them attention. They are drawn especially to people who will serve them sacrificially. They are typified by narcissism. Look them up; it’s an eye-opener.

    A third group are those who cannot abide clear direction. These are one with the bulk of people outside the churches. They deny any ongoing need for God’s saving grace and are offended if reminded of their sinful state.

    How can we distinguish people with problems (who are still “wheat”) from problem people (“tares”)? One check is to sweetly say, “No,” and watch. People who get offended, angry, or try to manipulate you to say, “Yes,” are likely to be tares. One handy and excellent guide is an article for counsellors, “5 Indicators of an Evil and Wicked Heart” at https://www.biblestudytools.com/blogs/association-of-biblical-counselors/5-indicators-of-an-evil-and-wicked-heart.html. These are the “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and the article makes them easy to identify.

    So, how do we respond? See part 2

    • Jean Camille

      Part 2. How do we respond wisely to the “tares” and “wolves”?

      For a start, we follow 2 Tim 2:24-26. “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”

      We readily see the value of this, but often, this is not enough to deal with narcissists and the “wolves.” With them we also need to address expressed evil.

      We can be as direct as Jesus when He confronted evil. Regularly, He confronted the sin of the religious elite, as in Mat 23:27, He called them “hypocrites … whitewashed tombs … full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” He confronted Peter’s worldliness, when ‘He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me”‘ (Mat 16:23).

      Amazingly, Jesus even voiced blatant racism, calling the Canaanite woman a dog (Mat 15:21-28). “The Shocking Words of Christ” at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-shocking-words-of-christ/ gives a fascinating insight on this counter-intuitive attack on prejudice. In effect, the racist slur gave the woman an opening. Her action declared that faith in Jesus Christ was important way above all personal hurt or social insult. Today, she is a key example of how to follow Jesus Christ. This is her standing in scripture and before God.

      How like Jesus. No matter how things look, He opens them to good. Seriously, how can we know what to say unless we too apply the whole of scripture as led by the life of Christ in us, His Holy Spirit?

  • Syndarin

    Christian bullies are obviously hypocrites and not Christians. If they were Christians, they would love their neighbor, the LORD, and fear the LORD to deter from harming their neighbor in any way.