How would you handle it?

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
RedPlums
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: I don't know...
Contact:
So, not too long ago I was on a Christian server and a dude came on, he/she started asking questions about Christians and spiritual items. Then he/she started accusing God and Christians of things that were not correct or true. After continuously giving him/her answers that he/she would not accept, I realized that this person was just there to try and make me or someone else stumble, to try and find a fault with our faith. After a while I knew that I could share the gospel with this person all I wanted and he/she would not accept it. So, I just left.

Out of curiosity I was just wondering how you guys might deal with it?

Thank you.
This is my signature
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34691
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
You did the right thing, there is no use sharing the gospel (or anything really) with a person who is not interested in it.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I agree. People like to pretend like they're looking for a reasonable and honest discussion but they reveal themselves quickly. They think they already know everything and they're looking to trip you in order to validate themselves. As soon as that happens, the best thing to do is to walk away.

Matthew 10:14
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:53 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX
Contact:
I think it's a good idea to engage everyone that wants to engage you. There's a reason why someone might be frustrated with Christianity, we are not perfect. Instead of thinking that something is "not correct" take them seriously. They are searching for an answer even if they come off as a troll.
User avatar
LegoFan560
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:25 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Ohio
Contact:
A few years I ended up in an email discussion with an atheist cousin of mine. It started out pretty friendly, but he quickly got hostile and unwilling to accept my answers. He twisted what I said and paraphrased Bible stories to make them seem horribly inconceivable. Eventually I quit replying to his emails because I was spending too much time arguing with him. I think you made the right decision.
@Cheryl: Thanks for a wonderful community. It is a pleasure and honor to be a part of it.

"Well then, carry on chaps."
-Deepfreeze32

"it's not malware guys it's linux ;)"
-ccgr

"Go play outside. That's what I'm going to do now."
-ccgr
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
brandon1984 wrote:I think it's a good idea to engage everyone that wants to engage you. There's a reason why someone might be frustrated with Christianity, we are not perfect. Instead of thinking that something is "not correct" take them seriously. They are searching for an answer even if they come off as a troll.
Engaging someone is a good thing, but only when the discussion can be constructive. In the case of the OP it wasn't a constructive conversation it was an ambush. That is NOT a constructive conversation and it isn't going to achieve anything positive. It will only build up resentment.

When someone has an honest question and are open to your reply, then yes by all means answer the question and talk about it.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
RedPlums
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: I don't know...
Contact:
Thank you for the feedback guys! I like it all. :)
This is my signature
brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:53 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX
Contact:
Just a few more things to add in response to ArcticFox. If one feels resentment building up in oneself, he or she should lay that out on the table and respectfully disengage to preserve friendship. Especially in the OPs case.

But, if resentment is not building up in you, I believe that being respectful and continuing to engage despite the questioner's demeanor can be beneficial to you both. If the questioner appears like a troll, he or she might let down their guard and try to have an amicable conversation. Even if they don't, it's not a good idea to just classify people as trolls or deciding that they do not actually want the answer. Deep down they really want to know the answer, and as the universe has aligned according to God, they have approached you.

One last thing, RedPlums. If none of this is you, for example you have no resentment and you are continuing to be respectful and engaging, but the answers you give are not satisfactory, it would be a good idea to probe the questioner as to why the answer is not satisfactory. Try to understand your own reasoning and their reasoning. This will help you see the basis of your own reasoning, and you will hopefully gain an appreciation of the other person's point of view or even change your mind.
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
I stayed off this thread for a while because I felt it might not have been my place to say anything, but I there is a small something I wanted to say on the "do not engage" philosophy. And I think Brandon hit the nail on the head on this.

So yes, some people intend only to be heard and not hear. Talking with them would be like talking a wall, if a wall kept interrupting you. Not only is there no consideration for your point, but they won't even address your statements and rather just repeat whatever they want to say. Religious people do this. Atheists do this. Sometimes it's because they think they know better than everyone else, sometimes it's because they want to aggravate others.
So yes, engaging with them is of little benefit and would only succeed in embittering yourself, but I think the philosophy too frequently gets overused.

I'm not a softly spoken man, and I'm fairly positive that many people, including many here, choose to not engage with me. Maybe they consider me mean-spirited, or hard-headed, or just ignorant. I don't know, because, well, they didn't engage. But, here's the thing, I never mean to run a one-sided conversation. I can push an overwhelming argument on some, but that's simply because I'm showing my cards upfront. And I feel, in cases like myself, we're both poorer if one party decided not to engage. You don't understand me any better, and I, you. You leave thinking I'm a jerk, and I leave thinking you are weak-minded. Not ideal.

So, the question is the line. When does a conversation become non-constructive? At the point of insults, generally is a decent indicator it's heading in the wrong direction.
So, he didn't accept your answers? Did he give his reason why? Did he find them inadequate and why? Or was he blatantly disregarding them?
Now, he clearly opposes you, but I never found that a reason to not engage.
But, something stood out to me in what you said that I would like you to reconsider in respect on how to handle people like him, and people like me.
You mentioned that you could share the gospel with this person, but they would not accept it, so you left.

I want to make one thing clear. I'm not opposed to you sharing the gospel. I don't buy for one second that people's religious beliefs should be kept to themselves. Beliefs are mean to be shared and spread. They need to be talked about and analyzed. It should be out there. I would never be offended for someone trying to share the gospel with me. I know why, and it's no insult.

But, here's the thing. You determined that he wouldn't accept the gospel, so you felt the conversation was fruitless. I get that you worry about others souls and don't want anybody to go to hell, but when you enter a conversation with people with that sort of attitude, you no longer treat it like a conversation, but a sermon. It's one-sided.
Are you not curious what he has to say, and if not, why should a non-christian ever be curious on Christianity? He is not a quest, he's a person. So, even if he doesn't accept your religious viewpoints, maybe there can be a conversation. And probably, nobody will change sides, but maybe you might even learn more about your own faith.

The way I see it, a free flow of information is important for an educated and free society. The more ideas people here, the more they can determine which ones are accurate and which ones aren't. Did you ever feel worse off for learning something new? Even if it's just learning about an idea that you don't think is true? Knowledge enriches, and Do Not Engage hampers the flow of knowledge.

So, I can't give you any real advice on how to handle this guy, except that maybe the way to really find out is to engage.
Other than that, never let your emotions take control. If you feel yourself getting flustered, take a step back and type once you feel calm.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
In short:

When both sides are acting in good faith, engage in the discussion. When they aren't, walk away. It's that simple. Trust yourself to see the difference. Sometimes that takes a little experience, but be aware.

People aren't entitled to your time and energy. Don't let them treat you as if they are.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
RedPlums
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: I don't know...
Contact:
Thank you Angel! I will take those words to my heart. Thank you very much. :) (P.S. I do not find you to be a jerk.)
This is my signature
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Haha, you don't know me well enough, yet. :P
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
RedPlums
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: I don't know...
Contact:
Ooooh, we shall see. =)
This is my signature
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I've been thinking about this topic and I would like to add something to what ArchAngel said earlier.
ArchAngel wrote: So yes, some people intend only to be heard and not hear. Talking with them would be like talking a wall, if a wall kept interrupting you. Not only is there no consideration for your point, but they won't even address your statements and rather just repeat whatever they want to say. Religious people do this. Atheists do this. Sometimes it's because they think they know better than everyone else, sometimes it's because they want to aggravate others.
These reasons are true, but here's another: Validation. Some people need to convince others to agree with them because that lets them feel validated in their own belief. These are easy to spot because they're usually the ones who seem to take it personally when you don't agree with them. They *need* to be agreed with. They aren't secure enough in their beliefs so they want to get as many other people to agree with them as possible so they can feel justified.

These are the type most likely to ambush you. I think Arch is right in saying some people just want to aggravate (troll) but I think that's less common than the validators.
ArchAngel wrote: I'm not a softly spoken man, and I'm fairly positive that many people, including many here, choose to not engage with me. Maybe they consider me mean-spirited, or hard-headed, or just ignorant. I don't know, because, well, they didn't engage. But, here's the thing, I never mean to run a one-sided conversation. I can push an overwhelming argument on some, but that's simply because I'm showing my cards upfront. And I feel, in cases like myself, we're both poorer if one party decided not to engage. You don't understand me any better, and I, you. You leave thinking I'm a jerk, and I leave thinking you are weak-minded. Not ideal.
Arch, you don't come off like a validator. It's one of the reasons I choose to engage you in debates. I avoid the validation seekers because essentially their own belief is weak and they want to basically drag others down with them. That's a intellectual parasite and long experience has taught me that "do not engage" is the only viable philosophy with these people. You and I disagree wildly on some things, but that hasn't stopped us from getting along.
ArchAngel wrote: So, the question is the line. When does a conversation become non-constructive? At the point of insults, generally is a decent indicator it's heading in the wrong direction.
That's a good indicator. There are other signs:

-When you feel like you have to repeat yourself over and over because they're not listening. It's because they're probably not. They don't want to listen. They've already decided you have nothing meaningful to say and so they want you to just shut up and listen to them. Some repetition in a debate is normal, because misunderstandings happen, but if you're making points that are simply being ignored...

-When they repeat themselves excessively. This one is a little tricky because you want to be careful that you, yourself, aren't falling into the habit of not listening to the other person. If you are making a sincere effort to listen and address their points, but they keep repeating themselves like a mantra anyway, then this is another sign that you aren't being listened to. They want you to accept what they're saying as stated, and aren't interested in going into reasonable detail.

-When you realize they're using insulting or derisive language to describe your beliefs. That's complete disrespect, and if someone doesn't respect you, they're certainly not going to respect your points. You can disagree with someone without being derisive toward them. This is very much like what Arch just said, but subtle. It's when someone doesn't come out and call names or say something overtly nasty, but you can still detect the mean-spiritedness in it.

A debate should be an uplifting and fun experience. If you're being made to feel like it's an ordeal or you dread responding, then it's time to walk away.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
I agree, validation is a stronger motivation than trolling.

If I might add on, validation is not necessarily an on-off switch. It comes in varying degrees and we succumb to it now and then, and sometimes strongly and sometimes weakly. These can change during a debate, too. A person who initially came in for validation might be further intrigued enough to listen later. Sometimes, a little tact can sway the weather of the debate. Sometimes. Some people don't care.

I certainly appreciate that Arctic doesn't consider me a validator, and we've had some very enriching debates because of it. Likewise, I don't consider him a validator as well, and we can both get pretty aggressive without having our feelings hurt. And I think this is an important point.

When Arctic and I argue, it's not personal. When a person seeks to be validated, the argument very much becomes personal. It's about one person being smarter than the other. I can't lie, I very much enjoy the thrill of pressing a debate home, rebuttals flying left and right and cutting questions down the center. But I take a lot of time to ensure what I say and what I read isn't personal. I talk about ideas with my fellow chaps here, and ideas are far more interesting.

So, I cautioned that maybe the person isn't trying to be destructive with their points. Sometimes, it's easy to feel like strongly worded posts are personal attacks when they weren't meant as so. Sometimes an issue hits a little home and you get a strong, defensive reaction. It's usually those times it's important to take that step back. When you calm down, and read it again, you might have a clearer mind in discerning whether the person is simply talking about ideas or whether he seeks to put people down.
Not terribly long a go, a friend had posted some video on her wall with some claims about what's wrong with society and I replied with my dissenting opinion. Unfortunately for her, she seems to not be so conditioned to disagreement. She gives a patronizing reply and I elaborate further on my point. Her wall begins to break down where she brushes off my point with the equivalent of "I know what I'm talking about and just Google it," which I say is disingenuous to the complexity of the issue and a flaky response to just push off her burden of proof by telling me to do the research for her point of view. At this point, she gets hurt. She says I called her disingenuous and flaky. I reply again assuring her that none of this is personal, I'm not saying she is disingenuous or flaky, but that reply was. By this point, however, she has chosen now not to engage. No doubt she wrote me off as a jerk.
And I get it, I did not pull the punches and I didn't sugar coat what I said. I can be quite assertive. But, at no point was I not ready to listen to whatever she had to say. But because she took offense and took my disagreement personal, although it was never meant so, she was defensive from square one, with patronizing statements to write off what I said, to finding insults where there is none, to not engaging. It's a shame, because it could have been an enlightening discussion for either or both of us. Arctic's sig, which I love, illustrates this perfectly: "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
So, this anecdote is only intended as a warning to putting up the defenses to early. But I also very much agree with Arctic, sometimes you do have to pack up and go.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests