The man in the arena makes the difference, not the talker

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4535
Location: Reality

Re: The man in the arena makes the difference, not the talke

Post by tmac »

Sam, your "pricked hearts" thread looks like a good one, and I may join that discussion when I get a chance. In the meantime I will just respond to your last post by saying that speaking of the Savior, I don't think he would condone the approach we have taken in this thread and others. This thread in particular reminds me of the squabbles among his original disciples about which of them would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Again, basically a pissing match, that had no meaningful purpose. The Savior didn't like it, and I doubt he would like this discussion any better.

Moreover, despite your desire to justify your confrontive, combative style by comparing it with the Savior and/or others, I think we need to be careful about such comparisons. When God himself engages in a combative approach or directs a prophet to do so, that is one thing. When we just do it on our own, as a matter of personal style, it is quite another. My considerable experience with this particular subject is that a confrontive, combative style rarely "works," and believe me I've tried. Like my son once reminded me, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. People are very seldom persuaded by a combative approach. It just puts them on the defensive, they quit listening, and come out swinging. And I think you may be making generalizations about the Savior's use of a more combative approach, that take those instances out of context. I can't think of many cases where he was the aggressor. Most of the instances where he was confrontive and combative were defensive maneuvers in response to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribe's attacks against him. And, as seems to be the pattern, even when the Savior used that approach it didn't really work. For the most part, the people who he used that approach with were never convinced or persuaded, and it only served to strengthen their resolve to kill him. Christ was a great leader, but the people he used that approach with did not follow him. For the most part, those who followed him were those he took a different approach with, taught, and showed compassion to -- including those who sometimes fell far short of his hopeful expectations.

Take it for what it's worth, but the confrontive, combative approach has never really worked for me, and I've given it plenty of practice. In terms of my discussions with you I don't think it has worked either, and that is the case in virtually every other instance I can think of. Like my grandma used to say "a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still." When people are attacked, rather than really thinking about whether there may be any truth or merit to the basis for the attack, all they can usually think about is how best to justify and defend their position. I think even the Savior's experiences provide plenty of evidence of this reality.

Samuel the Lamanite
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2828

Re: The man in the arena makes the difference, not the talke

Post by Samuel the Lamanite »

TMAC: it took me quite a while to respond to your comments because I tried to answer using scripture in addition to what I said about Jesus and Samuel the Lamanite in my previous post which IMO you really didn't address directly.

I would suggest that those who resisted the "Combative/direct/not pull one's punches" style used by both Jesus and SLT were pricked in their heart but instead of repenting, rejected the words and rejected the person who said those words. IMO, both Jesus and STL purposely used combative challenges full well knowing that most would reject them. Jesus knew they would lead to his death and STL knew he could easily be killed.

But why did they use this style? They knew it was meant to prick the hearts to bring about repentence but it didn't because.... of hardness of heart and stiffneckedness. Instead of leading to repentance, it led to hatred and total rejection.

I've put descriptions of both HoH and SN below for reveiw and self evaluation by me and all as well as some examples of both from scriptures. They are NOT my words but Gods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stiff-necked" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; look at the thresaurus too.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hard-hearted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "" "
http://lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=e ... iff+necked" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=e ... rd+hearted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply