Can I Please Have A Definition Of Bashing?

[nephilimiyr]

I get confused almost everytime people start accussing others of bashing their beliefs or church. I don't want to do this, or be falsely accused of this either. What confuses me though is that sometimes the same people who have accused others of bashing their church or movement I've seen make the same type of comments to others and their church or movement yet they don't consider it bashing when they do it because they believe they're speaking the truth.

I think in just about every case both sides are speaking in ignorance, but at the sametime the two sides absolutely believes they are speaking truth. I think we can all agree that there are insulting words and wrongs ways on how to say something, so bashing isn't always confusing to me. And sometimes I believe it is possible to know the attitude of the person writting their post even though they may not use key words to indicate bad will, like in useing sarcasm.

So what do you all think?

 

[Kings servant]

I get confused almost everytime people start accussing others of bashing their beliefs or church. I don't want to do this, or be falsely accused of this either. What confuses me though is that sometimes the same people who have accused others of bashing their church or movement I've seen make the same type of comments to others and their church or movement yet they don't consider it bashing when they do it because they believe they're speaking the truth.

I think in just about every case both sides are speaking in ignorance, but at the sametime the two sides absolutely believes they are speaking truth. I think we can all agree that there are insulting words and wrongs ways on how to say something, so bashing isn't always confusing to me. And sometimes I believe it is possible to know the attitude of the person writting their post even though they may not use key words to indicate bad will, like in useing sarcasm.

So what do you all think?

Bashing is when you express a view or belief that goes against what the person who is accusing you of bashing wants to think or believe. As a Christian, we are accused of bashing others all the time simply because the truth of God's word goes against the sinful and selfish lifestyle the want to live. But stand your ground because, Blessed are those who are persecuted for the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

 

[Albion]

That pretty much says it.

If you've noticed, the people here who whine the most about their favored church being bashed -- in fact, just about the only ones who do that -- are the same posters who do the most bashing themselves...and of almost all other churches.

 

[Willie T]

Bashing is usually saying anything the other guy doesn't like.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Bashing is usually saying anything the other guy doesn't like.

If that were true then we'd all be guilty. If we know someone is not in agreement with us, isn't there a way to put forward your belief in a more sensitive way?

If someone truely believes that the RCC is an evil organisation, isn't there a better way on how to express that? If someone believes charismatics and Pentecostals are under the control of demons, isn't there a better way to express that than to seem like your just pointing the finger and condemning?

 

[Willie T]

Maybe the word you are looking for is the one Jesus suggested? Love?

 

[Albion]

If that were true then we'd all be guilty. If we know someone is not in agreement with us, isn't there a way to put forward your belief in a more sensitive way?

Of course there is. However, some posters are here (and a few will even admit it) only to "get" the other person's church and/or promote their own. It's easy to know who they are.

They almost never discuss anything on any forum that isn't related to promoting their own denomination or criticizing the next person's. They chime in to support anyone else who's doing what they're doing. And they make it very clear what church they belong to. By contrast, there are many, many posters here who do NOT do that, even when they express very strong opinions. They are NOT the bashers just because they may disagree with some denomination's stance on something or other.

It takes more than that, as the above explains.

If someone truely believes that the RCC is an evil organisation, isn't there a better way on how to express that? If someone believes charismatics and Pentecostals are under the control of demons, isn't there a better way to express that than to seem like your just pointing the finger and condemning?

I agree with you on that. What I've tried to explain is the difference between an accusation worded in an unkind way, and a true "basher." The basher has the agenda and the intention to use any discussion to promote his own denomination. If it were not for the icons we can put next to our avatars, the church affiliation of most members here couldn't even be identified by the rest of us. Not so the bashers. They can't avoid doing that since it is their reason for being here.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Of course there is. However, some posters are here (and a few will even admit it) only to "get" the other person's church and/or promote their own. It's easy to know who they are.

They almost never discuss anything on any forum that isn't related to promoting their own denomination or criticizing the next person's. They chime in to support anyone else who's doing what they're doing. And they make it very clear what church they belong to. By contrast, there are many, many posters here who do NOT do that, even when they express very strong opinions. They are NOT the bashers just because they may disagree with some denomination's stance on something or other.

It takes more than that, as the above explains.



I agree with you on that. What I've tried to explain is the difference between an accusation worded in an unkind way, and a true "basher." The basher has the agenda and the intention to use any discussion to promote his own denomination. If it were not for the icons we can put next to our avatars, the church affiliation of most members here couldn't even be identified by the rest of us. Not so the bashers. They can't avoid doing that since it is their reason for being here.

Ah, ok, so it's not necesarily about one post but a whole series of posts that shows the person has an anti-xxxx agenda. You've been of most help.

 

[Albion]

Ah, ok, so it's not necesarily about one post but a whole series of posts that shows the person has an anti-xxxx agenda. You've been of most help.

I think the evidence is there, yes. But I understand that you were asking about something else, too--the fact that some people are just plain meanspirited...and how some people also cry "bashing" at every opportunity.

As with a lot of other "hot button" words, "bashing" has come to be as much a convenient accusation as it is a genuine concern. But I think the point about some people who use it to their advantage, playing the victim when they're actually on the offensive, was noted by you in the OP, too, when you said "I believe it is possible to know the attitude of the person." Yes, that "attitude" is basically what I had in mind when I said that there's an "agenda." They're not simply people with bad manners.

And thanks for listening.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I'd define it as: Making an accusation that's easily refuted, has no basis in fact. Or slanderous. Then, when effectively defended, the basher ignores the response and continues the accusation.

 

[Albion]

I'd define it as: Making an accusation that's easily refuted, has no basis in fact. Or slanderous. Then, when effectively defended, the basher ignores the response and continues the accusation.

How is anyone to define or identify "easily refuted?" I have read a thousand replies in which the writer thinks some garbled analogy constitutes a brilliant and air-tight refutation. Half the time the "refuter" didn't even understand the point being made. Of course the other party is likely to try again in that case. So it that to be considered "ignores the response?"

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I guess we could argue about it. But it's not worth the effort to me. I gave my definition.

 

[Albion]

I guess we could argue about it. But it's not worth the effort to me. I gave my definition.

I'm not interested in an argument, but your definition doesn't seem very definite. That's all I was asking about.

 

[nephilimiyr]

How is anyone to define or identify "easily refuted?" I have read a thousand replies in which the writer thinks some garbled analogy constitutes a brilliant and air-tight refutation. Half the time the "refuter" didn't even understand the point being made. Of course the other party is likely to try again in that case. So it that to be considered "ignores the response?"

Yes, and I see this happen quite often too. The person thinks that because an answer was given to refute a false claim that that therefore means the thing has been settled, and alot of times all that has happend is even more disagreement, questions, and quarels.

This is what I was getting at in my OP, that even though you may know the person is speaking in ignorance, that person doesn't believe that that's the case, they truely believe they are in the right.

 

[Standing Up]

I get confused almost everytime people start accussing others of bashing their beliefs or church. I don't want to do this, or be falsely accused of this either. What confuses me though is that sometimes the same people who have accused others of bashing their church or movement I've seen make the same type of comments to others and their church or movement yet they don't consider it bashing when they do it because they believe they're speaking the truth.

I think in just about every case both sides are speaking in ignorance, but at the sametime the two sides absolutely believes they are speaking truth. I think we can all agree that there are insulting words and wrongs ways on how to say something, so bashing isn't always confusing to me. And sometimes I believe it is possible to know the attitude of the person writting their post even though they may not use key words to indicate bad will, like in useing sarcasm.

So what do you all think?

I'd see bashing like you do. Those who do it accuse those who aren't doing it. They project and fail to see themselves in the mirror (doing the exact thing).

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

bashing - definition of bashing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

...verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation:

Biblical Example

Act 2:13
Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[sunlover1]

I'd define it as: Making an accusation that's easily refuted, has no basis in fact. Or slanderous. Then, when effectively defended, the basher ignores the response and continues the accusation.

 

[sunlover1]

bashing - definition of bashing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

...verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation:

Biblical Example


God be gracious to me a sinner.

Nice

 

[sunlover1]

How is anyone to define or identify "easily refuted?" I have read a thousand replies in which the writer thinks some garbled analogy constitutes a brilliant and air-tight refutation. Half the time the "refuter" didn't even understand the point being made. Of course the other party is likely to try again in that case. So it that to be considered "ignores the response?"

Hmm. also some good points lol.

 

[Tangible]

I'd define it as: Making an accusation that's easily refuted, has no basis in fact. Or slanderous. Then, when effectively defended, the basher ignores the response and continues the accusation.

This response rates high in truthiness.