The sermon yesterday was on the 6th commandment, "don't murder" and it got a little convicting. The pastor talked about an alternate translation which was "Don't treat other's lives as disposable", which I thought was interesting. He went into some depth on the reason for this commandment which is grounded in our worth as beings crested in YHWH's image. He also spent a lot of time on Jesus teachings in Matthew on the topic.
As I listened to that part, I realized that I often allow my frustration for Dan to be expressed in ways which might not be aligned with either the 6th commandment or with Jesus' commentary on the 6th commandment. For that I apologize. I firmly believe that Dan is created in the image of YHWH and as such has immense intrinsic value. I do not in any way wish to convey that Dan's life is of less value than anyone else's, or that I believe that he should be disposable. My disagreements and frustration with Dan stem entirely from the positions he holds, and not from my disdain of him as someone with no value. I will admit that some of how I respond is simply responding to Dan based on how Dan treats others. I shouldn't do so, but it is difficult not to on occasion.
Going forward I will endeavor to moderate my tone, and to be more specific about my disagreements being with Dan's ideas, and not with Dan as an image bearer of God.
11 comments:
Thank you.
Personally, I don't feel you needed to explain any of this, given what we know of Dan and his behavior on these blogs. For my part, I hoped that discussions on the various issues would lead to, as my blog "motto" states, either persuading or being persuaded. Clearly, and especially where Dan's concerned, it's been a most fruitless endeavor. As we all believe we have an accurate grasp of the truth...especially God's...I insist there's no doubt as to which side is more open to persuasion and which isn't, and there's no doubt as to which side has the most honest and best supported arguments which should result in the persuasion of the other side. (Hint: Dan is neither)
Tone, in this case and at this point, is the result of 17+ years of dealing with one who is dust many have kicked off their sandals (namely, Stan, Neil, Glenn and many others who won't allow Dan to comment on their blogs). You and I still allow him to comment and we find ourselves facing his nonsense in every post where he's chosen to weight in. As far as I'm concerned, each new post is a continuation of previous debates and as Dan weighs in, he repeats his crap again as if for the first time and we go through the same dance over and over again. So to "be nice" only lasts so long because we're dealing with his petulance and arrogance and condescension...as well as his dearth of honesty and evidence. This means I'll be referring to him as an asshole because he chooses to act as one, and who am I to refuse to accept him on his terms? When someone tells you who they are, believe him.
You're welcome.
I don't need to do anything. I chose to try to repent of what I see as actions which run counter to the 6th commandment. I could have done so without posting, but I chose not to.
You are free to act as your conscience dictates. I am choosing to attempt to moderate my language as it relates to Dan personally, as opposed to that which addresses his beliefs and ideas.
Well, he certainly is what he is without me having to point it out as if it ain't obvious, that's for sure!
I would also suggest that identifying Dan as what he clearly is isn't necessarily expressing hatred, but simply being factual. As is my practice, I do follow up with an explanation for why the words I use are appropriate and accurate. The explanation, then, is the point. Hearing I'm a bigot, or misogynist or racist or whatever by the lies of a Dan Trabue trouble me not regardless of whether there's hateful intent or not (who can read the heart of another?). But the explanation for why my position justifies the label applies is important to me if they're gracious enough to explain doing so. While in Dan's case, the explanation that do come are failures for justifying the labeling, but in other cases by other people, it might be corrective. I really don't take umbrage if that's the case, and less so if the explanation is crap.
Anyway, I get your meaning well enough and agree we should all be more Christ-like in our behavior at all times...even when dealing with a Dan Trabue. Arguably more so in those occasions.
You do you. I'm making a choice. It's likely a choice that'll come back and bite me when I fail to live up to the standard I'm trying to hold myself to. I think that part of my problem is that I tend to lower myself to match Dan's behavior, rather than try to stay above it. I'm doing this for myself, and n one else.
Fine. Just don't go calling him "dear brother"! ;D
Don't worry. He's made it quite clear that he is not worthy of that appellation.
Craig:
Going forward I will endeavor to moderate my tone, and to be more specific about my disagreements being with Dan's ideas, and not with Dan as an image bearer of God.
This is my goal as well. I'm guessing you don't think my disagreements with your opinions and positions (on PSA, for instance, or immigrants, or the corruption and dangers of this current administration, etc) have been focused sufficiently on where I disagree with your opinions, and that I've not moderated my tone towards you, as a person? If so, please point it out.
I believe - and suspect that you do, as well - that it's okay to disagree and even strongly disagree with opinions and policies that I believe cause harm to others. I think it's okay to rebuke opinions and policies that promote racism or rape or harm to immigrants... and that this is different than denigrating the person holding the opinion. Do you?
This is, at least in part, why I have tended to refer to you all in more kindly terms, rather than abusive names. If I say, "This person is my brother, a dearly beloved child of God..." rather than "This person is a _______" (insert vulgar, abusive term), it's my way of reminding myself and others of the Other's status as a human being, created in God's image.
My apologies if this is viewed in some other way, it's not my intent.
Great, if you can actually do this, as opposed to engaging in performative nonsense, that will be great. You'll pardon me, if you r past actions don't give me much hope.
"Do you?"
What an interesting example. It's almost as if you believe that there are actually people who comment here, or are in significant positions of influence who are advocating "racism, rape, or harm to immigrants". I suspect that your hunch about "harm to immigrants" probably includes anything beyond giving immigrants free, unfettered, access to anything they want with zero expectation of assimilation.
If you didn't have a history of referring to me in multiple vile, hateful, and vitriolic terms I might believe you. If you didn't have a history of lying about me, and misrepresenting my positions, I might believe you.
Unfortunately, I do have to deal with your history of all of those things and would have to see significant changes in you and your actions in order to take you seriously. You've done significant damage to yourself due to choices you've made, and that is just the position you've put yourself in.
Post a Comment