DON'T LIKE THE MESSAGE? ATTACK THE MESSENGER

One thing that has been so clear in the current political debates that are in process is that the issue at hand isn't what is publically discussed. No doubt it is true of both parties, but one characteristically has the same response to dissenting voices: The dissenting point of view is not addressed nor answered, its validity not even considered. The dissenter is personally attacked. Point in case: The top leader of the senate has called those against a current piece of legislation in question, "Anarchists." Anarchists assassinate, bomb, etc. Others who support it have called those against the bill, "arsonists, kidnappers, terrorists." Not wanting to deal with the realities that the opponents raise with their point of view, the proponents personally and wrongfully attack these opponents. The tactic is if the message is not liked, attack the messenger. Any who have tried to share the Gospel, make a stand, or give counsel have experienced this. If the hearer doesn't like what you have to say, instead of dealing with the validity of what you say, he leaves attacking you. This is not new. They did so with Jesus. They did not like what He had to say. Instead of dealing with the issues He raised, they attacked Him. They called Him an illegitimate child, a glutton and a wino. Yes, they called our Master that simply because they didn't like His message: "...they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. ... "(Mat 11:19). Now that last intended slur, "a friend of publicans and sinners," is really a compliment. Attacking the messenger, tearing down the messenger, does not change anything. It does not make the attacker nor his point of view correct. It doesn't not alter truth or reality. It only muddies the water and diverts attention from the matter at hand. They attack Jesus, but His message has been proved correct over and over again.