Your points regarding rebuke are well taken and provide key passages and principles for us to consider in our interchanges. Blasphemy, idolatry and false teaching I would consider to be sin. Blasphemy and idolatry is sin against God and false teaching is a sin against those misled spiritually thereby. To what extent should these be rebuked when posted in a public forum?
A second area of discussion is the use of humor and ridicule in bringing correction and or rebuke. You and I employ both, as do many of our fellow freepers. Where are the lines here? [I do not think you or I have crossed the line with each other since neither of us are very thin skinned and neither of us are trying to hurt each other with humor.] Sometimes humor is just teasing (see the first sentence) other times it is to make a point. Yet other times humor is intended to hurt someone and other times a person gets offended when no harm was intended. When is it over the top?
A third area is what is a personal attack? Is critique or ridicule of ideas that are revered by a person a personal attack? Is unwanted discussion of a person's family a personal attack? Is declaring someone a non-Christian a personal attack? A for me, I do try not to engage in personal attack. At times however, I have been accused of personal attack both in the public forum and via Freep mail. In these cases I have usually apologized when I believed the complaint was valid and tried to explain when I felt it was not valid.
I do struggle to keep a balance. Your thoughts? What do others think?
Steve,
You raise some interesting questions. Here are my views.
[1]I haven't checked 'idolatry' yet but blasphemo is used about 40 times in the NT. Many times it is translated as slandered because it is applied to others 'slandering' Christians. On the other hand, in many instances, it is translated as 'blaspheming' Christ or God. What is intriguing to me is that I cannot find a single instance in which we, as Christians, are given delegated authority to rebuke it. It is observed in many instances (cf. John 10:36) and in some instances (cf. Mark 3:28-29 and Luke 12:10) the consequences of it are quite clear. Moreover, we are often enjoined to avoid it, but I cannot find a single instance in which we are, even impliedly, encouraged to identify it in others and rebuke it. So, my answer would be that one should be well-concerned about uttering a 'blasphemy' of his own, but should be very reticent about identifiying someone else as a 'blasphemer.'
[2] I think it is totally fair to use ridicule and humor against ideas, but not against people. There is a risk here, because sometimes 'ideas' are hugely personal. For example, I just posted an attempt at humor directed at Woody's idea that the Gospel can be best summarized in 5 words which he wants people to guess. Now, when I make fun of such a concept, it is hard to avoid the implication that I am making fun of Woody for formulating it. While the line between saying it is a stupid concept and that the formulator of such a concept is stupid is a narrow one, I still think it is sustainable.
But when I refer to "Johnny's Little construct" I am intentionally demeaning a human formulation (and possibly by inference a historical figure -- although I think not), I am not demeaning those who accept the formulation. It is (obviously) my purpose to get them to compare and contrast in their own thinking the difference in force and authority between a statement of Scripture and the formulation of an individual or group of individuals about Scripture. I think that is also permissible.
I don't take offense when people ridicule Mr. Wesley (even though I think he made an enormous contribution to the history of Christianity). I believe in Christ, but I merely accept (some of) Mr. Wesley's ideas. Big difference.
[3] The area of personal attack is, in my view, the big kahuna. I see all the difference between saying an idea is foolish and saying an individual is foolish for believing it. The former is not a personal attack, in my view, and the latter is. Thus, it is permissible to say a concept is "not Christian" and it is IMpermissible to say a person is not a Christian for believing in the unchristian concept.
[4] No, a critique of an idea -- or its outright ridicule -- is not rendered a 'personal attack' merely because the idea is "revered by a person'. Almost any idea meets that test and would thereby be rendered immune from attack as false. That is the mistake made by the FR 'moderators' in some earlier instances in which Catholic dogma was ridiculed. I believe the RCC's many and varied dogmas (on every conceivable topic) have to be fair game. It is NOT 'bashing' to point out that the dogmas are foolishly false.
It is, on the other hand, impermissible to castigate individual catholics as 'going to Hell' or 'non-christian' because they believe them.
Let me just say one other thing on this point. I think it is permissible to say "this is what the Bible teaches is required for salvation" but I do not think it is permissible to say "Obviously, you don't believe that." That is attempting to apply the Biblical standard (as one sees it) to the person and life of another. That, it seems to me, is what we cannot do. Stating the standard, arguing for it, indeed arguing against other standards is fine, BUT attempting to apply those standards to others is not. That step should be left to the other person.
[5] and [6] Yes and yes. I just cannot see that discussions of ones family or calling someone -- personally -- a non-christian (unless they admit it) has anything to do with ideas.
So, in sum, I favor great latitude in arguing, debating, castigating and even ridiculing ideas, concepts, constructs -- regardless of the 'collateral damage' to the feelings of the supporters of those ideas, but I think that statements addressed to the holder such as "you are not a Christian", "you do not know the Gospel", "you are (or are not) [fill in the blank]" is impermissible personalization.
Moreover, as argued above, I think we, as Christians, owe a higher duty to find specific 'delegated authority' in the Scripture before we attack others who profess a belief in Christ as Savior. I do not believe we can do so under grounds of some duty to 'rebuke'.
I know, for example, that you believe strongly in your role as a disciplinarian within your church and I have no problem with that, because your parishoners have impliedly submitted themselves to your authority in that regard by affiliating themselves with your church. However, I do not think you would enjoy any similar non-consentual right as to those not affiliated with your chruch body.
I think you do an admirable job in keeping on issue.