Is This Blasphemy - Washington Post?

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I didn't really see a problem with his letter. He was mad as many of us were.

That's just it, you're angry. And this letter shows it. Sorry, but it's not a very diplomatic or effective letter, imo. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

That's just it, you're angry. And this letter shows it. Sorry, but it's not a very diplomatic or effective letter, imo. Maybe I'm wrong.

I agree! The first thing you are taught when you respond to legislation that you do not agree with while writing your representative - 1. Do not come across angry or they will not listen to you.

[MissBrattified]

The problem with the letter is that it held the tone that could come from any number of factions, religious or secular. And, it could have focused more on the idea of respecting religions in general, rather than the disrespect to Pentecostalism.

Frankly, IMO, the most heinous part of the cartoon was NOT the reference to speaking in tongues, but placing a curse word in God's mouth. Representing God in such a profane way was much more worthy of address than the defense of the "scriptural experience" of talking in tongues.

[MissBrattified]

The sandwich method would have been nice.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The sandwich method would have been nice.

As taught in Carnegie's book?


Most of you don't know me personally so you cannot truly appreciate the delicious irony of me advocating restraint in response to liberal attacks. Like Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln, in my youth (40 is young right?) I was expert at the vitriolic come back. I can speak from personal experience, it does not work. It only serves to widen the gap between me and unbelievers and that's not what Christ wants us to do.

Something that has helped me is to remember that when I respond to offensive smears like this cartoon I need to keep in mind that a real person, most likely and unbeliever, is going to read what I write. I'm not writing to an impersonal institution, I am writing to people, and unbelievers at that! So I need to keep my emotions in check (very tough for a Pentecostal to do most of the time) and attempt to communicate with respect, kindness, and reason. This approach is much better than a frontal assault which only serves to entrench their defenses. Consider too, if you're a believer working at wp and you read this letter and have to give it to your boss, an unbeliever. I wonder how embarrassed that believer would be and how it damage their witness in their work environment? I'm sure it'd alienate them even more. However, if a measured, kind, and reasonable response were to come through it would serve to advance the cause of Christ, rather than hurt it.

jmo.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

The problem with the letter is that it held the tone that could come from any number of factions, religious or secular. And, it could have focused more on the idea of respecting religions in general, rather than the disrespect to Pentecostalism.

Frankly, IMO, the most heinous part of the cartoon was NOT the reference to speaking in tongues, but placing a curse word in God's mouth. Representing God in such a profane way was much more worthy of address than the defense of the "scriptural experience" of talking in tongues.

Aside from that - at least - no one is going to try and murder the cartoonist like the Muslim world would be threatening to do.

I wonder if the Muslims see how we are handling this by words and not violence?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

As taught in Carnegie's book?


Most of you don't know me personally so you cannot truly appreciate the delicious irony of me advocating restraint in response to liberal attacks. Like Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln, in my youth (40 is young right?) I was expert at the vitriolic come back. I can speak from personal experience, it does not work. It only serves to widen the gap between me and unbelievers and that's not what Christ wants us to do.

Something that has helped me is to remember that when I respond to offensive smears like this cartoon I need to keep in mind that a real person, most likely and unbeliever, is going to read what I write. I'm not writing to an impersonal institution, I am writing to people, and unbelievers at that! So I need to keep my emotions in check (very tough for a Pentecostal to do most of the time) and attempt to communicate with respect, kindness, and reason. This approach is much better than a frontal assault which only serves to entrench their defenses. Consider too, if you're a believer working at wp and you read this letter and have to give it to your boss, an unbeliever. I wonder how embarrassed that believer would be and how it damage their witness in their work environment? I'm sure it'd alienate them even more. However, if a measured, kind, and reasonable response were to come through it would serve to advance the cause of Christ, rather than hurt it.

jmo.

I agree with everything you said except your broadbrush statement: "(very tough for a Pentecostal to do most of the time)"

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree with everything you said except your broadbrush statement: "(very tough for a Pentecostal to do most of the time)"

haha. i guess that's an opinion for another thread.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I personally thought it was a very unprofessional letter.

Really? How so?

Just curious........

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Really? How so?

Just curious........

His first sentence started out on defense mode. That is not professional.