[I wrote about Paul and the Athenians--see Acts 17.]
Paul didn’t take that approach with the Galatians though. I agree there is a time and place for both approaches.
There can be, though maybe I've been reading the wrong threads in the Religion Forum and have the impression that some people believe that "foolish Galatians" is the main (or even only) approach to be used.
I never would've imagined before coming here that I'd see so much quotation of Matthew 24--as if that passage, "foolish Galatians," and a few other select verses constituted the entirety of guidance to Christian speech and related conduct.
In fact, seeing all of that inspired me to search the Bible, and it struck me that there is quite a bit of guidance that does not neatly match using "foolish Galatians" as one's only approach to speech.
This difference is not evidence of so-called contradictions in the Bible, but there is more to the Bible than Matthew 24. There is more to Christianity, I would suppose, than proving that Christians have a perfect right to call others "fools" in all circumstances. (Where are all the people quoting Matthew 5:22?) If the essence of Christianity were just arguing with other people on internet forums, then Christians would truly be most to be pitied.
I am wary of an idea that the external appearance of success is a perfect guide to the actual numbers of the saved, but I've noticed that the most "successful" apologists and evangelists seem to be able to bridle their tongues.
Matthew 5:22 uses two words not used in Galatians 3:1. According to Greek expert AT Robertson, “Raca” is an assault on one’s intelligence, and “More” (as in moron) is an assault on character. These appear to be more severe than what Paul used of the Galatians, “anoetos”, which conveys an unwillingness to use the mind one has, a much more charitable assessment.
And please realize this is not a disagreement with your premise. I would love to see everyone here “speak the truth in love,” and I think many attempt it. But we all have differing ideas of how best to do that, which takes us back to the Golden Rule. Don’t talk to others in a way you would not want them to talk to you, even if you were wrong.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. My rendering of the Golden Rule, how I would want others to persuade me if in fact I were wrong, would be for them to be frank, and to come up with a convincing argument for their position. I can respect that, and I can even change my views in such a context.
But if someone begins with an assault on character, or sweeping generalizations about intellect, what most people do is become defensive, which helps no one. In my experience here at FR I have tried to avoid responding to any of that. My initial, knee-jerk reactions to low blows can be pretty ugly, but sometimes holding back that initial response and giving it a little time and thought allows for a calmer, more useful response. It’s a discipline. The objective, for me anyway, is to respond to the substantive arguments, if there are any, and ignore the rest. Like a pastor friend of mine used to say, eat the chicken but throw out the bones and feathers.
Peace,
SR