Anyone who has ever commented on my blog knows that I "screen calls". I moderate who gets to comment and who doesn't. I'd say more than 95% get through. Agree or disagree; I'm not too picky. I delete some because they are advertisements rather than comments. I delete some because they are abusive rather than friendly. I only block one person entirely. But I do moderate comments. If it was an advertisement, I don't say anything, but if it was abusive I'll send them a private email saying, "I'm sorry. I can't post your comment. I can't allow that on my blog. If you'd like to do it without the abuse, you're welcome to comment." With the exception of the ads, I let people know why they aren't making it to "print" so to speak. What's interesting to me is the numbers of these people that keep coming back. Some will continue their invectives (and remain blocked). Others will continue to disagree agreeably. But I've laid out my argument(s) and I've given my reasons and I've offered my Scriptural backing and invariably they'll come back and tell me I'm wrong.
What do you suppose that is all about? I've explained, for instance, that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential element of Christianity, a non-negotiable item. I've offered vast quantities of Scripture on the subject. And still I get people trotting through explaining to me repeatedly that no such doctrine exists and I'm foolish for believing it. I can't imagine the aim. "If it doesn't exist, Christianity is finished and the Bible is a lie," I say, and they assure me it doesn't exist. Is that helping me in some way? I go to great lengths to discuss the Sovereignty of God including the importance of the doctrine to me. Still I get people who are eager to assure me that God is not Sovereign. To me, "The Sovereignty of God is the answer to all the most difficult questions of human suffering." They would like me to give up a satisfying answer to human suffering. Is this supposed to be beneficial to me in some way? I've been more than straightforward on my view of marriage, what it is, and especially what it's not (see "same-sex marriage"). I still have people who are pleased to come by and tell me I need to alter my view. I need to eliminate any biblical understanding, any concrete definition, any core purpose, any genuine use for marriage and just ... get along. How is this to my benefit?
I'm wondering what they're thinking. Do they think that if they harass me enough with lies about what I believe and disclaimers about the veracity of Scripture and the absolute certainty that certitude is wrong that I'll wake up--Bing! Light bulb comes on!--and say, "Oh, my yes! I've always been wrong. All of Church history has been wrong. The Bible is wrong. Orthodoxy is wrong. Christianity is wrong. And you're right, my friend. Thanks for clearing away all of that. As well as my hope. And any reason to trust ... God or anyone else." Is that their aim? I would think not, but I can't figure out what it would be. "You need to be more tolerant" makes no sense to me when they work so hard to be intolerant of the beliefs I hold with which they disagree. "You need to stop being a hater" doesn't even work in my head when I can't see that I'm hating.
It's not like it's retaliation. I don't go to their websites or blogs and argue repeatedly that they're wrong and need to straighten up and fly right. If I did, I'd do it with Scripture and logic, but I don't think they want to hear either, at least not from me, so I don't do it. So it's not like they're "returning the favor." I don't favor them with my company.
Why is it, then? I understand the ones who disagree agreeably and we have a pleasant disagreement. There's dialog there. But why is it that antagonists who I've had to keep from commenting due to their abusiveness make it a practice to return (often repeatedly) to argue against things which, if they're right, would make my life miserable? Is there some reasonable reason for this? I'm just wondering.
9 comments:
Unity of thought is the end game. That someone out there has the audacity to think differently, or to see things differently, than the secular humanistic consensus of a particular day, then that must be rectified. It is a life mission for those gifted with the gift of "thought police" I guess.
That's why I see Secular Humanism, even when it presents itself as "Christian", as a religion in its own right. There is a real zeal to preach it and to proselytize its virtues, and in the end I think it will resort to violence which will be justified by the promise of that ever elusive Utopia.
I think they just like to harass you or they think you are being forced to read them and they can convince you of their argument or something. I get those a lot on some of my more controversial posts (such as about Beth Moore).
I had one who began inundating my comments (all deleted of course) and when I asked her to stop because I wasn't reading them, then she started sending me harassing emails about how God was going to punish me. I block her e-mail. Then she obviously looked me up and found my home address and sent me a letter threatening me with all sorts of retribution. Bad move; I used to work for the Postal Service and knew what she did was illegal. So I replied to the letter by saying that if I received any further communication in any form, that I would present the letter to the Post Office. I stated using the mails for threat is a violation of federal law with severe penalties. Never heard from her again.
Is there some component in which they think they're doing me a favor? I'd prefer to think it's not merely malicious, but I can't find any sense in which it might be viewed as "helpful" to attempt to strip me of all hope and reason as if that helps.
I suppose threats, abuse, and harassment are thought to be a useful tool if reason and evidence fails?
Same sort of tactics used by cults and terrorists. No evidence, but intimidation keeps people in line.
Sometimes I think they are just trying to convince themselves more than you (or us). They continue to run various versions of the same arguments, looking to see if they can be countered, as well as how well they can be countered. They feel better about their desire to believe what they want to believe, as opposed to believing what they may very well ought to believe, if they can trip you up or cause you to stumble in addressing their point. It really doesn't matter what your response is as much as how badly they want to believe it isn't true or logical or even likely.
So they'll continue to hammer until they detect surrender of any kind. That is to say, whether you surrender because their point is so solid (extremely rare if possible at all) or simply because all patience with their nonsense is lost, surrender is always regarded as validation of their position. It's a battle of wills at some point and though it is merely someone's humble blog, to quit the battle to them implies surrender and thus that desperately sought after validation (which likely does little for their conviction after all).
Just my take on it.
It's your online property -- it's your right (and duty) to police and moderate -- if anyone doesn't like it, they can easily start up their own blog and have their say.
I know I've disagreed with you on plenty of matters ;), but I can't recall having a comment deleted (it probably might have happened at some point :)
No doubt I've been guilty of coming here, and adopting a "you're wrong" frame -- and for that, I give /apology, that it more my intent to see a matter from another Jesus follower perspective.
(Though I am in solid agreement about your thoughts on the Trinity :))
I have no problem with disagreement, Naum. In fact, I don't know anyone who doesn't disagree with me on something. And I have benefited from people who have attempted (and even succeeded at) correction. It's the repeated, ongoing, "ignore-whatever-arguments-he -offers-and-keep-disagreeing" types, especially the disagreeable disagreements. More to the point, though, it's the folks that seem to want to convince me of something that will not be good that I don't get.
In case my readers were wondering, yes, Dan Trabue has been responding. I'm just not posting them.
Dan, I have no way to write you an email since your email is blocked by my provider. That's information, not a dialog.
Post a Comment