I’m not going to dedicate a blog post to this. You are continuing to shrug off the questions that have been put to you. You feel free to criticize others, but when it comes back your direction you want to change the subject. Let it be so noted.

Your suggestion that I use a dictionary may have felt cute to you when you used it, but like the previous time, it was evasive. It was rather comical, too. It is, in fact, a classic maneuver of defensiveness. You see, in my question to you, I included a definition, the one it seemed likely you were employing. I have a Master’s degree in psychology. I wasn’t asking for a definition of defensiveness; I already know what it means. I specifically asked you what you mean by “defensive” in this context, adding,

I’m sure you would not find fault with someone defending their viewpoint, answering argument with argument, for example. But apparently there’s something else that you see going on here, something that smacks of weakness or pathology.

I want to know what it is that you see that seems defensive. I want to know how you distinguish the arguments being presented against arguments—which do not amount to defensiveness—from weakness or pathology.

If you see defensiveness in what we’ve written here, and if you can’t or won’t explain the defensiveness you see, as I have just asked, it’s very possible that you’re erecting your own defense, one called projection.

I want to know where you think, for example, anyone other than you is evading or avoiding any significant topic of conversation. I’m curious why you would point that out in others, when you, for example, evaded or avoided all of this in comment #15:

freedom of conscience, the dignity of women (a Christian innovation in world history), the rule of law, ending slavery (another distinctly Christian innovation), protecting the life of newborns …, instituting genuine care for the poor and infirm, and so on.

I’m wondering why you’re laying responsibility upon Bret and Brad for focusing on “abortion,” when in fact you’re the one who singled it out for discussion in comment 16, and when their topic is not abortion but your rudeness in persisting unapologetically with this term “zygote hysteria.” You’re trying to deflect attention from the topic they’re pursuing; that’s a defense mechanism. They’re not talking about abortion, C. Ehrlich. They’re talking about your behavior. (Should we open up a new thread for that?)

Your deflection ploy with that is not unlike one you also used in comment #16 here. You have criticized me for not being willing to acknowledge error. Have you ever done anything but deflect correction yourself?

In calling on me to use a dictionary this time you’ve made it as if the deficit were mine, but this is not about whether I have a vocabulary or not. It’s about whether you will or will not answer questions and engage in honest discussion here, or just keep on erecting your own defenses.

If your pattern holds now, you will accuse me of being defensive for writing this. No. Let me answer for you the question you should have answered:

Defensiveness is not the same as defending one’s position. To defend a legitimate position by legitimate means is perfectly legitimate. Psychologically, defensiveness is generally (as I wrote earlier) a matter of avoiding realities relating to oneself. Avoiding is also not the same as disagreeing. I have disagreed with you frequently, but that is not a matter of avoidance. Better evidence of avoidance is this: to deflect (as you have done), to ignore (as you have done), to evade (as you have done), and to project (as you have done).

I asked you to point out for us where you see defensiveness in what we have written. You might take the above as an example, because I have pointed out for you where I see defensiveness in what you have written. Feel free to borrow my example for your own use.

Let me re-emphasize: this is about your behavior, not about mine, Brad’s or Bret’s. It’s not about our grievances. It’s not about abortion or about turning the other cheek. It’s about you. I If you think I’m violating Jesus’ command by pointing all this out to you, then you really don’t understand the full context of all that Jesus taught.

Do not flatter yourself to suppose we have the slightest reason to accept your theological conclusions in comment #57 as being normative for our understanding of “turn the other cheek.” You really, truly, do not know what the full context of teaching is on this subject, and you’ve rejected (evaded) what we have written on it (and supported biblically, see for example my comment 49). Whatever it is you say you find enticing about Jesus’ teaching, apparently it is much less than what he really taught, and therefore not what he really taught. You are being enticed by your own imaginations of what a religion might be. Fine, if you want to do it, but it’s not a standard you can expect followers of Christ to hold to.

I hope that was plain enough.

“If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. But teach a man to fish….”

I’d also suggest that you take more time to consider the topic of this thread, thinking about how to appropriately (see #57) interpret Jesus’ commands about turning the other cheek, etc. You could consider how the attitudes taught by Jesus might contrast with defensiveness/anger/indignation,etc. at perceived personal grievances.

Now, if you really do want to discuss abortion with me, then I’d encourage you to petition Tom Gilson to begin a new and more relevant thread (as he seemed to suggest that he would do above). If we’re going to have a productive discussion on this thread, we can’t just run down every new rabbit trail. I hope you can understand that.

You wrote here, as you have concerning me elsewhere in the past, that people are becoming too defensive for this thread to make progress.

I was thinking it would be instructive if you would tell us what you mean by “defensive” in this context, and where you see it happening. I’m sure you would not find fault with someone defending their viewpoint, answering argument with argument, for example. But apparently there’s something else that you see going on here, something that smacks of weakness or pathology.

As I understand it, unhealthy defensiveness usually comes out of an unwillingness, inability, etc. to face or address some uncomfortable reality; and manifests in attempts to evade that reality, to project it onto others, and in other ways generally duck facing that reality.

What I see Brad doing (I’ll leave out my own participation for now) is answering your arguments with arguments. Is that defensive? What I see Bret doing is similar. He and Brad are both encouraging you, too, to see a reality that you have not so far acknowledged: your behavior here. I’m not sure what’s being “defensive” about that.

So could you parse this out for us? What’s the difference between defending a viewpoint and being “defensive,” and how do we know when the latter is happening?

You’re a smart guy. What did you think would happen, when you stated prolifers were engaged in “zygote hysteria”? thank you for the compliment?

I think that a fair assessment of your position is, you think you’re right, vis a vis zygotes, and anyone who believes differently, is the one who REALLY needs to apologize.

I offered to discuss the plausibility of your views, regarding the humanity, of the unborn, and our moral obligations to them, in a philosophically rigorous way, but you declined. Citing the need to stay on “topic”. Anytime you would like to discuss these issues, feel free, but I suspect you’ll decline again. but considering the paucity of philosophical support, for your pro-abortion, or pro-choice views, I entirely empathize.

The point I have been pressing is best appreciated at a general level. Begin by taking Christ’s commands at face value: do not resist the evildoer, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, etc. After thinking through the various intolerable implications of applying these rules universally, the next natural thought is to take Jesus to be using hyperbole, or to find some interpretation that would limit the application of Christ’s commands. But in this direction lies the danger of reducing Christ’s commands to mundane or trivially prudent advice, such as the mere suggestion to strategically avoid a fight when one is outgunned, or the suggestion to start being nice to one’s enemies (maybe serve them tea) once you realize that resistance is unfeasible. What’s tricky is to provide a principled interpretation of Christ’s commands that avoids both (a) what is intolerable about the universal and exceptionless demand, and (b) the banalities of the watered down interpretation. I’ve not discovered a successful middle path, although I hold out promise for one.

I realize that the reasoning here is abstract, but do you follow it? Do you understand the challenge, as I’ve laid it out?

Now, in this thread I suspect people have become so defensive and upset that there is little hope in making progress with this issue. This is tragic because it is precisely what we lack–namely, a robust ability to overcome slights against one’s own person (whether real or imagined)–that has prevented our progress in addressing this same deficiency.

You have yet to give a specific instance in which Evangelicals have violated this command. I have provided you with examples where they daily obey it. Until you can give an example, your continued insistance that Tom and others undermine the teaching of Christ are not very convincing. As I said, you sound like the person who protests that the command not to judge bars them from jury duty.

The command to turn the other cheek is not a command to allow evil to act with impunity. Nor does it forbid Tom from breaking off a conversation with you because you have been abrasive and rude. Your “apology” that you were sorry that he was offended is about the silliest apology a man can make, and adds further “face slapping” insult because it insinuates that he is thin-skinned. I am beginning to agree with him that you aren’t interested in dialogue. I’m afraid your refusal to address the several points that I have made indicate that you are only interested in assertion and accusation without any substance for critique. I had hoped for better, because if there is a wide-spread failure to live by evangelicals to live up to Christ’s commands, I, for one, would like to know about it.