Cheryl Schatz

Tiffany,

You said:

Cheryl- it is uncharitable and inflamatory to take a quote (even a direct, word for word quote) of someone else that is most likely to turn the audience against them.

My friend, do you really consider it uncharitable and inflammatory to repeat back what someone has said? If the audience is going to turn against the person, don’t you think that they would have turned against them when the person first made the statement?

Let’s take this one to its logical conclusion. Let’s say that we are publicly discussing race relations and our opponent says that he hates —- (you fill in the blank with whatever racial slur comes to mind). So it appears to me that you are telling me that it is not> inflammatory for the opponent to say that he hates —– but it is inflammatory for me to state that this is what he has said and to invite discussion on the statement? Sorry, but I am confused. I was never taught that repeating an opponents position in the process of the discussion is an inflammatory statement that will turn the audience against the opponent. I can think of ways that one could twist the opponent’s statement to make it appear that he is making a racial slur when he is not, but to quote a true copy of what is said should not be a problem at any time. I would not be offended if I am quoted in a correct way. In fact, I am happy when I am quoted correctly as that invites dialog and encourages understanding.

You could have just as easily said that “NN believe the submission to be the same as that of the master-slave, government-subject relatioship” or even just the government-subject relationship (if you were going to pick one over the other that was used) or more accurately said that “NN points to the word used to give instructions to the husband-wife/master-slave/government-subject as the same word and draws his conclusions from that”. Perhaps a bit more verbose, but at least far more accurate. Making the master-slave correlation seems to be the go to in egalitarian circles. (Very similar to complementarians makes the egalitarian=feminism correlation which is equally uncharitable.)

I can grant you your point if I had added in the woman/slave connection and NN had not mentioned it. This would certainly be similar to what complementarians do when they bring in an egalitarian-feminism connection. When one doesn’t bring in the bad connection and the other party inaccurately connects things that haven’t been related in the original statement, that could very well be an uncharitable addition. But I fail to see how my quote of NN’s position using his own comparison makes my statement inflammatory and/or uncharitable.

Maybe there is someone reading this who could accurately point out how I was being uncharitable or inflammatory. I honestly do not see it and I work very hard on my blog to promote Christian charity.

Anyone?