Internet Rhetoric
I have noticed an ongoing disturbing aspect of the internet. That aspect is the rhetoric that people are willing to use because of the anonymity the internet gives.
Three examples are:
1. A discussion about US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith quickly devolves into a long, drawn out (and useless) argument about Mormon purity garments (described by a LCMS Pastor as “Holy Underwear”). As soon as the inflammatory “holy underwear” comment was used any reasonable discussion was over.
2. An interesting discussion about vessels used for communion takes a 3 page “side trip” when a LCMS seminarian calls individual cups “individual abominations”. There was some very interesting points made about treatment of vessels after their use, etc. but I first had to wade through pages of arguments about the use of the word “abomination”.
3. Lutherans on a discussion board refer to the NIV as the “not inspired version”. Now, I understand that many Lutherans see the NIV as lacking, and not the “best” version, but what does it say to those who read their NIV trusting it to be God’s word when you call it “not inspired”. Should we all throw out our Concordia Self-Study NIV bibles?
What all three of these have in common is that it is not likely that these types of comments would be used in a face-to-face conversation. I know that I have given myself a new rule: I wait at least half a day before commenting on posts that get me worked up. The comment I leave after thinking it through is always different than the one I would have put immediately. Debate is healthy, inflammatory rhetoric is a waste of time.
Three examples are:
1. A discussion about US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith quickly devolves into a long, drawn out (and useless) argument about Mormon purity garments (described by a LCMS Pastor as “Holy Underwear”). As soon as the inflammatory “holy underwear” comment was used any reasonable discussion was over.
2. An interesting discussion about vessels used for communion takes a 3 page “side trip” when a LCMS seminarian calls individual cups “individual abominations”. There was some very interesting points made about treatment of vessels after their use, etc. but I first had to wade through pages of arguments about the use of the word “abomination”.
3. Lutherans on a discussion board refer to the NIV as the “not inspired version”. Now, I understand that many Lutherans see the NIV as lacking, and not the “best” version, but what does it say to those who read their NIV trusting it to be God’s word when you call it “not inspired”. Should we all throw out our Concordia Self-Study NIV bibles?
What all three of these have in common is that it is not likely that these types of comments would be used in a face-to-face conversation. I know that I have given myself a new rule: I wait at least half a day before commenting on posts that get me worked up. The comment I leave after thinking it through is always different than the one I would have put immediately. Debate is healthy, inflammatory rhetoric is a waste of time.
posted by Ritewinger at 12:07 PM
2 Comments:
That's likely a good idea...one must also consider the company you are arguing with. :)
I will point out shortcomings in the NIV where warranted but we still use it as our main Bible version at the church because they bought a bunch of them only a few years ago. Once they wear out, we'll go looking again.
But yeah, posting when angry is the best way to get flame wars going. Then nobody is happy.
(I do have to say, thinking like this will help you as a pastor. Don't react in moments of anger, if you can at all avoid doing so.)
Post a Comment
<< Home