Karma

[Reynolds357]

I don't think sarcasm is one of the fruits of the Spirit of God. It isn't in my Bible. Please know that you really don't have to be so condescending in your posts, Reynolds. I don't believe it is necessary or edifying. And by the by if you want to believe that okra and pears are the same thing I'm perfectly content to respect your right to hold that opinion. God gave you a mind and free will. I might strongly disagree with your okra and pear feelings and politely tell you so and why but I wouldn't talk down to you. I just don't think insulting someone's intelligence is a good way to join in a civilised discussion.


All I was saying is that others have explained the differences to the OP so I didn't need to go there. Did you really think that the OP was calling The Holy Spirit "The force" from Star Wars? I didn't get that impression. It felt more to me that they had innocently gotten the two terms mixed up. No need to condemn or treat anyone as though they were committing a sin. The OP and all others reading this thread have been politely enlightened and have taken the information onboard. I guess I just believe in a more peaceful, patient, and gentle response. Against those three attributes there is no law.

Just my 2 pence.

Telling someone that believes that Okra and pears are the same thing that their belief is wrong, does them a much greater service than "respecting" their wrong belief.
If you feel I am "condescending" and "talk down" to people, then that is an opinion you are entitled to hold. We are entitled to have opinion and those opinions be respected by others. We are not entitled to be in error of fact and that error be respected by others simply because we believe it to be correct. George Washington was the first president of The United States. I will not respect the view of someone who chooses to believe Abraham Lincoln was the first president of The United States. A belief would be "George Washington was a good president." A belief would be "George Washington was a bad president." "George Washington was the 44th President of The United States" would be an error in fact.

[Athanasius]

I don't think sarcasm is one of the fruits of the Spirit of God. It isn't in my Bible.

Both Jesus and Paul (to name two people) employed sarcasm, and both were downright rude in other instances. Luke 13:31-35 comes to mind, as do Galatians 5 and 1 Corinthians 4.

[mrsarnold]

Both Jesus and Paul (to name two people) employed sarcasm, and both were downright rude in other instances. Luke 13:31-35 comes to mind, as do Galatians 5 and 1 Corinthians 4.

I guess that's just going to have to be one way I'm incapable of being like Jesus, lol (and Paul).

I know that I personally would probably never respond rightly to someone being sarcastic and rude to me and so I don't use it with others. But may I add that I don't think that either Paul or Jesus would have felt that sarcasm or rudeness were called for in this situation. Just because Jesus employed sarcasm at fully appropriate times (Being perfect He would certainly know when it was called for) does not give all Christians a right to be sarcastic, caustic and rude any time they don't agree with something. It really wasn't necessary in this case. Before Reynolds or I posted the OP had been informed of the error by people who knew what they were talking about.

[mrsarnold]

Telling someone that believes that Okra and pears are the same thing that their belief is wrong, does them a much greater service than "respecting" their wrong belief.

I didn't say I wouldn't explain that I thought they were wrong. I said I would politely disagree and then explain what I believed to be the truth. In your view, would that be wrong?

If you feel I am "condescending" and "talk down" to people, then that is an opinion you are entitled to hold. We are entitled to have opinion and those opinions be respected by others.

I would be happy to be mistaken on that front, Reynolds. It 'sounded' a bit condescending to me, but I admit that this medium lacks the strong indicators of tone of voice and body language that are present in person, so I could very well be wrong. If I am I will gladly and humbly apologise.

We are not entitled to be in error of fact and that error be respected by others simply because we believe it to be correct. George Washington was the first president of The United States. I will not respect the view of someone who chooses to believe Abraham Lincoln was the first president of The United States. A belief would be "George Washington was a good president." A belief would be "George Washington was a bad president." "George Washington was the 44th President of The United States" would be an error in fact.

I definitely agree that we owe a person who is mistaken (in this case someone who has more or less fallen victim to a common misusage of a word/concept) polite correction. I can't agree that you need to use sarcasm and belittling in this case. In my view there just wasn't any call for it. If others had not done so already I would have explained the OP's error to him/her employing good manners and again, gentleness, patience, kindness etc. I was not objecting to the correction, only the way it was delivered and the fact that it had already been done. Do we need ten more people to tell the OP again the difference between karma and reaping and sowing? I don't think so. It would be like pouring ten gallons of water on a fully extinguished match. No need.

[Athanasius]

I guess that's just going to have to be one way I'm incapable of being like Jesus, lol (and Paul).

I know that I personally would probably never respond rightly to someone being sarcastic and rude to me and so I don't use it with others. But may I add that I don't think that either Paul or Jesus would have felt that sarcasm or rudeness were called for in this situation. Just because Jesus employed sarcasm at fully appropriate times (Being perfect He would certainly know when it was called for) does not give all Christians a right to be sarcastic, caustic and rude any time they don't agree with something. It really wasn't necessary in this case. Before Reynolds or I posted the OP had been informed of the error by people who knew what they were talking about.

Sure. I was just pointing out that sarcasm is in the Bible (God's reply to Job, for instance, is quite sarcastic)

[mrsarnold]

Sure. I was just pointing out that sarcasm is in the Bible (God's reply to Job, for instance, is quite sarcastic)

You are right about sarcasm and insults being used, even by the Lord, but now I'm interested enough to go back into the Scriptures to see who the recipients of those harsh words were, other than the Pharisees and other Jewish hierarchy. I admit that I don't remember without looking. Oh the unwanted signs of old age, lol...

I have to admit that Job is another book that I have trouble with. I must just be too sappy and tenderhearted to understand God's reasons for some things. As to how in the end God gives Job back all that he lost and with regard to possessions a bit more... but I don't care how many more kids He might have given me... they would NEVER be able to take the place of those who were killed at the start of Job's testing. No way to replace that sort of loss...

[Indueseason]

Mod Note: This thread has served it's purpose, and is now so far off topic, it needs to be closed.