As much as Tree wants to avoid engaging given a lack of time this particular subject is an incredibly deep one on which a great deal of time, ink and pondering can be spent by all.
What is an "insult" ? Definition: "speak to or treat with
disrespect or
scornful abuse."
Note the flow. The insult flows FROM someone TOWARD another. The insult therefore reflects the opinion or PERSPECTIVE of the sender.
To be honest, an insult is an OPPORTUNITY - not a detriment. It allows us to check up on ourselves.
WHY does that person hold that opinion or, worse, perspective of me? Is there any truth to the matter? Do I need to change something? Am I presenting myself badly (either in the immediate situation, or in an ongoing way?)
Frankly, the SENDER is merely speaking words. And words only have the power the recever gives them.
They also only have the BENEFIT the receiver chooses to allot them.
Are we offended by the 'insult' ? if so, why? The "offense" is "MY" problem, not the sender's problem. The offense exposes a vast array of things. Pride, if I'm flustered because "my self" has been 'attacked'. Guilt, if I'm flustered because the 'insult' actually strikes close to home, and exposes something about me I need to deal with. Etc.
This should be pondered very deeply.
It is true we should never behave in an 'insulting' way toward another. It is harmful to them, though it need not be when they recognize the VALUE of the insult... yet we should avoid harm.
It is worth pondering into the bargain here, one of the closest rebukes Jesus came, to levying an insult:
"“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto
whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead
men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”
What was he saying to them? A sepulchre is of course a small vault or place for burial of the dead. A whitewashed sepulchre is one that is made to "look good and impressive on the outside, but inside is full of decay and impurity.'
Jesus' "insult" was providing them the OPPORTUNITY to "look into a mirror" and see themselves for who they really are. Would they? What they did with the truth He spoke to them, was not his responsibility. His responsibility was to speak the truth.. and he tried every means possible to get His point across.
Now... his motive in levying the rebuke/insult was, of course, entirely different than most people's "insults" - nonetheless, he was showing us:
1. The proper use of insults. (when one is indeed distributing death, as the scribes and Pharisees were, an 'insult' is not necessarily out of place - it is a valid way to bring to their attention what they are doing.)
2. The responsibility of the deliverer. (To use all available means to get the attention of a true evildower.)
3. The responsibility of the hearer. (To receive, judge, and change if/as needed.)
And more.
So at the end of the day,
@herlig9, the question is "What do you mean by ...'act on insult' ?"
There are some "actions" when an insult arrives, that are essential. They are all inward.
There are other "actions" when an insult arrives, that are detrimental. They are all "outward."
An insult is an expression of a "judgment". The insultor is simply expressing their judgment. It is "we" who receive, who then either apply the insult according to its value, or behave "wrongly", and go on the attack, feeling ourselves of greater worth than perhaps we actually have.
Next time we are 'insulted' Tree suggests we disarm the insulter.
Something on the order of "thank you for pointing that out. I will give it some deep thought and make any changes needing to be made."
Oh what a wonderful subject is this one.
