Yes this will make some people laugh loudly, others might agree but be very saddened & others might have varying views but think its an interesting view of the human brain in some folk.
Background is I had a conversation with a couple of friends who are conservatives. Both don't in a god but both are fairly open mind on most things. All in all both are most reasonable persons and even when we don't agree there is never anything I can claim is disagreeable about them. They are conservative in politics but they are thinkers & challenge their own thinking as much as others.
I was explaining about Ben Shapiro and how he uses a very simple approach to dealing with issues being debated. Facts, just use them and nothing else. Do that & remember facts don't care about feelings and feelings should never ever over take or replace facts. Simple.
To show how it would work we looked for a way to experiment when chance would have it, a fine candidate dropped into my lap. Someone retweeted something from Father Rod Bowers of the Anglican Church in Gosford NSW. He's deemed by some as being a little controversial for his clever one liners in a letter board outside his church all around social issues.
This particular one was regarding Manus Island detention centre. The centre of the sign was "Mr Dutton" & all around it were the words "No" in red.
Now the idea was to not engage on refugees but to make a baited statement hook and only stick to facts no matter what is thrown up, keep going back to those facts. No matter what. The predicted result would be that left leaning twitterers would flock in, most would be non Christian and when they struggled with the facts, names or unrelated distractions would get lobbed in to derail the exchange to win. For me it had to not be about winning, it had to be about the facts and nothing else.
If the bait takers brought up facts that were correct that proved me wrong I would have to concede & accept them and thank them.
In the prediction I said not only will it see repeated attempts to derail or distract, it would get personal. I would eventually be called a bigot, intolerant, my mental health would be questioned, probably get called a RWNJ (Right Wing Nut Job) and possibly a hater.
Then there's the hook. I posted one tweet "I don't disagree with his sentiments I just wish he'd preach the Gospel a little more"
I explained to my friends that as the man is a "priest" its easy to know if he's on song performance wise. Just go to his sermons, watch online and then compare with Scripture. Now although my friends are non Christian we agreed to use Scripture as the standard to judge. Now lets be clear, we only used Scripture to use as a guide to judging his performance. I explain why I thought Rod Bowers is actually a non Christian priest who makes social commentary (which is his right) and by Scripture he was a false teacher. Using the standards that my atheist friends don't believe in but concede "Father Rod" should they concluded indeed he is apostate by Christian or Biblical Standard.
Now why use Rod Bowers? Well its a very full left nest. Many no Christians go to his church because they say there's no fire & brimstone. They share a lot with local muslims including an Imam giving a sermon in the church. That's 2 diametrically opposed religious faiths. This intermingling is called or referred to as "Chislam". Sadly Rod may well do some great & wonderful things in the community, but he's not Christian because he doesn't stack up against Scripture.
That's neither here nor there though. The real gut test was the leftist reaction.
Before our experiment rules were clear. I wasn't to call names, nor to react to name calling except to say "that's fine but the facts are..." and return to the facts.
To say we got some classic trigger reactions was an understatement.
Somehow from that original "I don't disagree with his sentiments I just wish he'd preach the Gospel a little more" and some Scripture quotes to back it when pushed we saw these words used to derail.
Islamaphobe, RWNJ, hater, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, mongrel, evangelical, prosperity doctrine follower, Liberal, Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson lover, fundamentalist, extremist, ass, racist and a number of comments on my extremely damaged mental health & inferred I had committed slander
.
They're the ones I can print. I also had an ex-Labor MP from Victoria get stuck into me but when I showed the Scripture to explain points of Apostasy I got 2 more insults and blocked. Now my 2 friends asked why I didn't respond to the insult that I was supposed to reply politely & return it to the topic & to facts.
I explained this is how it operates. If they come up against facts, they go personal or go for a distraction. With twitter they have the added benefit of firing and insult and blocking straight away. I don't get to see it, don't know about it and it looks like the insult has shut me down & I'm ignoring the insulter. I replied returning it to the facts but of course the ex-MP wouldn't see it.
In the end I explained to my 2 friends, here's how it works.
Be like Ben Shapiro.
Know your subject, know it very, very well.
Know the facts very, very well & cite studies to reinforce your position.
Know the studies you cite very, very well.
Get sledged or slammed, cop it ignore it & respectfully return to the issue & the facts.
When a distraction or rabbit warren is presented to de-rail, deflect or distract just comment that's not part of the facts & return to the facts.
You will be called names, voices will get raised at you and in the case of Ben Shapiro you get death threats.
Ben Shapiro sticks to the facts because facts don't care about feelings and feelings don't beat facts.
Be Like Ben.
Now Milo Y. is in a similar vein in that he knows his facts very very well. He knows the studies very well that form his facts. He knows aspects of Christianity & Islam extremely well. Difference is, he's highly charged in the area of flamboyance and has been know to cripple a critic with his delivery of the facts.
It does point to a new approach that's beginning to show up in Universities in the USA. Strong and very aggressive left devotees pushing their agenda but now beginning to come up against fact centred people.
Its unsettling for them & its unravelling.
If you get into a politic discussion know the facts, stick to them & when distractions or deflections arise, return to the facts.
My 2 friends are still non-theists but they see clearly that the claim I made, using the standard in which the "priest" is supposed to operate under (Scripture) he is indeed failing. FWIW in a spiritual/religious sense the Bible says to call no one "Father". It also says Pastors have to be held to account & will be judged with a tougher standard. Scripture tells pastors to preach the Gospel. Scripture says to welcome in no other God (Chislam is a serious no no). And apparently Rod has also declared he doesn't believe in Heaven or Hell...even though its in the Bible. He's pro same sex relationships, even though the Bible is very much against it.
You don't have to agree with Rod nor agree with Christian standards set out in the Bible, but they sure do differ and its this altering of standards the left love so much that cause the left to flock to folk like Rod even though they don't see themselves as Christians.
What you believe here isn't important, nor what my worldview/faith/belief/religion is.
What you see and remember that when the left are involved bluff and bluster are favourite go to weapons. So to as distractions and deflections.
Know your facts and the left can lose easily every time.
Every time.
No comments:
Post a Comment