So you want to argue?
It seems like lately I have been spending a heap of time talking about the arguments that are conducted in the comment threads of this blog. A couple of days ago I sat down and had an interview with Paul for some research he is doing into online interaction in the emerging church area. BTW was he right to be worried that linking to him would lead to mad signposters taking issue with his every opinion?
Most of my conversations about this blog recently are not over anything so mundane as phil’s and my viewpoints, but more about the strange community developing in our comments threads. Viz, the development of the word “signposter” which was coined recently by a commenter. Over the past couple of days I have been reading over a few old controversial threads which are no longer current. Apart from the observation that phil and I are clearly clarions of reason, grace and mercy, I have a few observations and suggestions for future arguments about stuff theological.
- Don’t use the “slippery slope” argument. Seriously. Have you not realised that this is the least creative argument ever? You can use it for absolutely anything. There is no situation in which this cannot be applied. Women in leadership? Women without hats? Meat on Fridays? Non-observation of Lent? I challenge you to name any instance in which this argument cannot be used. I defy you.
- The moment you call your opponents heretical or imply they are not Christians or don’t believe in God you have lost all of my respect. If you have reached whatever age you have and have not comprehended that genuine people of faith have genuinely held positions of faith which are different, then you are either self-deluded or close-minded. Disagree with my opinions if you wish, but do not say that my opinion makes me non-Christian
- It is my observation that people who hail from different positions often have at the core of their differences a different understanding of scripture or the word of God. Be conscious that the difference between you might be more fundamental than whether you agree on the particular issue at hand
- Using big words is not evidence that you are smart. Being smart is evidence that you are smart. This is harder than it sounds. When in doubt, shut up.
- Accept that disagreeing with someone’s theological position might also be disagreeing with someone’s faith. Recognise that people might be personally offended. This is not necessarily a theoretical discussion. If people say you are being aggressive, offensive or rude, you should listen to them. Just a suggestion.
- If you have to take one thing from St Francis (and I would love it if you took more), how about “seek first to understand”. It was good advice then. It is even better advice in the online environment where so many other communication cues (eg body language etc) are not available
- If all else fails, keep a sense of humour. At worst the people you disagree with are godless infidels, surely they deserve a laugh before they go to hell.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Agree with everything except “heresy”.
We still need legitimate scope to label peoples beliefs that are outside the scope of orthodox as HERETICS.
Dan, respectfully, by not allowing us to categorise dodgy doctrines as heresy and their proponents as heretics then you are validating the philosphy of the contemporary Church as advocated by Brian Houston et al that anything goes and everything is relative (”as long a the name of jesus is being preached”) and therefore there is no absolute Truth.
Please let us to continue to play the game and change the rules so that we can legitaimately label somebody as a “heretic” if we have legitaimate proof and a valid, well thought through rationale.
If somebody you beilieve that has labelled a person a “heretic” unfairly, we can escalate it ti an new “inquisition” thread and then people can cast a vote at the end of the debate.
If the Heretic is found not guilty, then the Hertic label should be formally withdrawn by the accuser. If he is found guily then he should be banished from Signposts and if they continue to post - their alias should be formatted so that it appears in Scarlet coloured font until they repent and come back into the fold of true believers and proudly be labelled a ’signposter’.
Signposts would be no longer fun without Heresy.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I find it expedient to take umbrage at your insinuation, via the fourth point contained in your manifesto, that verbosity vis a vis the utilising the breadth of language available to us in our tete a tetes on signposts fails to demonstrate a superior intellect. Those whom are capable of comprehending and employing the complexity of text which rejoices in the majesty of a sizeable vocabulary are understandably and evidently the intellectual superiors of those whose personal lexicon suffers a dearth of adequate expression. To contend otherwise is counter intuitive, especially in an environment such as Signposts where the instrument of conflict is the expressed word and the conflict rages over the theological and practical revelations and applications of the revealed word. How can one (with clear conscience) put forth the precept which would contradict such a comprehensible unambiguous and understandably straightforward hypothesis?
March 20th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Please tell me I invented the word ’signposters’. I am sure I didn’t, but my ego needs to be inflated like a pente pastor so I can run off and start my own church and launch my one message ministry and my speaking career where I promise you the life you’ve always wanted after you agree I need more money.
Slippery slope is a valid argument. It’s generally called sin.
Sin doesn’t just make you blind, it makes you stupid.
Ergo only smart virtuous people can read a dictionary.
BTW *I* strongly object to being called ’strange’. I mean it’s all about me, me, me really, isn’t it? So yeah, that’s right blame me, blame the victim.
Now you;ve gone and hurt my feelings, made me cry, caused me to doubt my faith (in whom or in what is irrelevant, it’s *my* faith not yours), made me lose respect for youze all. And to demonstrate how wonderfully gracious I am I will unleash uncontrolled rage against h-e-y-r-e-y-t-e-e-k-s and h-e-e-p-o-k-r-e-e-t-s. Say your prayers, Homer.
On the other hand of course I am mad. I’m in a straitjacket you know.
I type with my nose.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:05 am
This is fantastic. Only on signposts would you get a debate about the form the debate should take. Lionfish, lol,
(”as long a the name of jesus is being preached”) that’s so true, eg. ‘curse you ,in jesus name’, ‘new car, be mine, in jesus name’, pizza, be free, in jesus name’, ‘let the glory fall, in jesus name’, etc. etc. etc. It’s all about using jesus name to build your own empire, like saying abracadabra 3 times with feeling, always saying the jesus bit with holy gravitas, perhaps a little shake in the voice on the jeeee bit.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:10 am
ADHD.. the exuberance of your verbosity is overwhelmingly vibrant !
March 20th, 2007 at 6:26 am
We’re no longer allowed to use the slippery slope argument?! How ridiculous!! What next, we’re no longer allowed to use other rational forms of argument either? No ad hominems? No hypotheticals? No modus tollendo ponens?
Sooner or later we won’t be allowed to argue at all. We’ll be FORCED into agreeing with Dan, and any opposing points of view will be deleted.
Dan, I pray that you will come to know the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, ‘cos there ain’t no slippery slopes in hell either, just a lake of fire. And a whole lot of lawyers.
Seriously, I reckon your points are generally quite valid. I’m happy to go with it.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Something to argue about - the cultural cringe in Australian churches.
I just picked up the Hillsong conference brochure for 2007 and I noticed that all the featured speakers are from overseas and all men - OK I know Hillsong have women who speak and play an active role at the conference .
But is this the cultural cringe that makes people think that everything from overseas is superior - I would be interested in hearing about other people’s ideas .
And while we are at it - let’s draw up a list of alternative people we would like to have at the Hillsong conference apart from Dan and Phil .
I vote for Anthony Venn-Brown -
March 20th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I liked your comment Dan about seeking to understand. I find that people on a blog can often shoot at the hip over a small comment that may offend them, or that they may object to, without fully understanding the context and emotions behind what was written….
I also agree with Lionfish about the heresy comment. It’s what makes Signposts interesting! I mean how am I going to know who is a heretic and who isn’t if we aren’t allowed to label them? I will be a double-minded man tossed by the waves without my fellow signposters telling me who I should label as a heretic and who is kosher….
March 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
How did I know that Lionfish would be the first one to have a crack at this thread wih a “respectfully… blah blah.”
To coin Delta Goodrem LF…. “you’re just soooo predictable”. Come one, everyone sing….!!!
Dan, I like what you have said. Too many times a new arrival to signposts has their salvation/faith/christianity questioned because they’re not in the same mind set as many here… well, I shouldn’t say many, I should say the most vocal here. I know this is not what you and Phil have in mind for the forum because the first thing that greets me every day is the mission statement up above. I know you probably don’t like HS that much but you never question my heart for God simply because I go there.
There is a type of person that inspires me and stirs me up to be a better person. They are people that live by example. Without saying a word they remind me of how I need to keep striving to be more God like.
Thanks Dan.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Whether we should ride on the swings or the see-saw during recess - can’t use the slippery slope argument there!
March 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Great posts guys. Up all night laughing about Saint typing with his nose!
Seriously Dan, you need to let us call Heresy. It’s not a point of degradtion for example I like Wiggy, appreciate his intensity, consider himon our side in the rage against the machine, but recognise that he is a heretic due to unbelief in the Trinity. Lance is fully orthodox, yet I think he goes too liberal with the gay issue - yet we like and respect each other. The herto, the The Heretic and the The Homo - Strange bedfellows aren’t we all?
Signposts is where it all comes together.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I think that we shold also not be allowed to use weasel words
March 20th, 2007 at 9:19 am
I should clarify that these aren’t rules for signposters, just observations after reading 8 pages of comments on an old thread in which I was called all sorts of names.
Everyone seems to have a real fondness for calling people heretical. Are there really that many genuinely heretical people here that you feel the need to label them as such? As I said, these aren’t rules so you can do what you want.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Lionfish does not incorporate everyone
March 20th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Lioneveryonefish. Guess not.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
“Seek First to understand before insisting on being understood” (St Francis of Assisi
I’ve always thought this was a great plan for heading off unecessary conflict, but let’s get practical with an example here of where it might struggle to work (& suggestions are welcome) : -
How can a fundamentalist conservative christian “seek first to understand” a gay persons feeling of right to feel safe & accepted in their sexuality when they cannot even get past the point of believing that being gay wasn’t a choice?
And how can a gay man or woman be understanding of a right-winger’s right to talk about something they have no understanding or experience of, yet will speak with great authority about?
You can seek to understand as a goodwill gesture, actually understanding is something quite different.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Much of the time when i argue here if i do, it’s not because i actually believe i can change the mind of the person i’m debating. It’s more that i think that i might be able to influence the undecided mind of an onlooker who needs to hear opposite views. Either someone else is influencing them, or i am - that’s how i see it.
AVB is always telling me that we need to be ambassadors for the gay community, not activists - & that the best way we can do that is by forgiving the ignorance that has caused us so much pain in the past. He amazingly has done that, one of the most unconflicted non-bitter people i know, but i still have too much angry young man in me. Too much to say.
I’m learning, though.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I don’t mind people arguing at all. And I think that viewpoints do change as a result of those arguments. Maybe not the viewpoints of the main combatants, but I have had plenty of people comment that to me that comments on signposts have taught them something or helped them to consider something in another light or whatever.
People can be angry young men and still try to understand each other. It is the talking past each other that gets frustrating.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Forgiveness - its not something that one person can tell another person to do .
I think people have to get there in their own time .
March 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Yeah, well i do listen to what other people are saying. And i have had my viewpoints changed, too.
As a matter of fact, i sometimes fear that i’m being pulled back to my former pre gay under 24 self that would have been sucked right in to something like BattleCry or Teenmania in an instant. Sometimes Right Wing views make perfect sense to me & i panic about what that means.
I guess thast would be the exact equivalent of homophobia, but instead “conservaphobia” (fear that there is part of me that still agrees with the Right & that reacts & projects when others raise the subject, similar to a homophobe fearing that any sympathy or identification with gay ppl actually makes them gay).
Sometimes you’ll be writing here & stop & ask yourself “who am i trying to convince & what of / do i really believe this”
What sometimes convicts me greatly is remembering being a 21 yo urban missionary speaking with great zeal about the evil of homosexuality to guys a bit younger & them lapping up my words & nodding away. How it sucks when broken, unintegrated /non-evolved / non-self-realised people passionately evanglise others in order to get away from their own true selves. Sometimes i have trouble forgiving my own ignorance, let alone other people’s.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I too cringe when I think of the things I said to people as a former youth leader. I can’t believe how I thought I had the right to tell people how to run theur lives, the way I did. It’s embarassing and I was wrong…and it hurts like hell to admit it.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Me too, sure does.
Lord forgive us for our pretense & our shallow mouths in the past. Father, where it be Your Will remove any glib, thoughtless, damaging remarks we made that were taken as Gospel by one of your children. We repent in shame of personal stuff passed off as your word, father.
Amen.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Amen. Maybe we could start pushing for this to be kind of like the Lord’s Prayer for AOG pastors? Just kidding. I know plenty out there who are OK, but you know what I mean.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Hey dan and guys,
I read this blog all the time, but never comment as I’m actually reading it for research purposes. But since I’ve been referenced here I though it’d be okay.
Dan, just want to say that I’m not at all worried that people who comment here might start arguments at my site. I would even welcome it - it’d most likely be very helpful. I think I may have said that once phil had said something about my research on a post and no comments were made about it, and I though that was in hindsight perhaps a good thing as it meant it didn’t ensue mass debate.
But I really want to say that I really enjoy the mass debate, the tongue-in-cheek Aussie-humour insults and the banter. It shows that people have the courage here to make it a safe place for people to say what they really think.
I hope I haven’t caused any offence to anyone by making people think the arguments that go on here aren’t all good. if nothing else, they’re also entertaining. I think phil, dan and the guest posters are doing a great job at moderating the site in this way.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“Don’t use the “slippery slope” argument. Seriously. Have you not realised that this is the least creative argument ever? You can use it for absolutely anything. There is no situation in which this cannot be applied. Women in leadership? Women without hats? Meat on Fridays? Non-observation of Lent? I challenge you to name any instance in which this argument cannot be used. I defy you.”
It can be argued that the failure of people to take heed of the slippery slope argument, has resulted in the kind of moral decay that we’ve seen in western nations.
So if the slippery slope argument can no longer be used, then where will that lead us?
Oh..hang on…I’m talking conservative nonsense.
As you were.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I wish I could be an angry young man - angry middle aged man is all I can hope for. Bec, you can be the angry young man - BTW that comment reminds me - where are you Bec?
March 20th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Is Bec a Man!!??
When i read through your post Dan i was sitting there thinking
“she was reading one of my arguements for sure”
the slippery slope arguement is overused but still valid
Dan… do you really agree with your own comment
“The moment you call your opponents heretical or imply they are not Christians or don’t believe in God you have lost all of my respect. If you have reached whatever age you have and have not comprehended that genuine people of faith have genuinely held positions of faith which are different, then you are either self-deluded or close-minded.”
are you saying that all beliefs are valid based apon how genuinely they are held???
what if we don’t have unity of belief in essentials???
and i would say that there are a lot of people out there who believe they are Christians but who’s beliefs about what Christianity is all about is soooo corrupted from beginning to end that one could be quite right to say that they are not (at least) espousing a Christian view at all.
eg Jeebus says her heros of the faith are Kulman Meyers and Bonnke!
thats like saying im a humanitarian and my hero of international relations is Adolf Hitler!
or dare i say it … Bec says she is postmodern (a worldview that cannot be reconciled to Christianity in the same way modernism cannot) as opposed to Christian. (not saying your not a Christian Bec but i think you, like many, are unaware that we ’syncretise’ many beliefs with Christianity, postmodernism is one of the most insidious while right wing politics one of the easy and obvious)
Signposts and blogs in general are a good opportunity to cut to the chase in arguements because we don’t have personal relationships that would force us to soften our opinions/arguements and thus let people off the hook with crap thinking.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Am new here, but my observation having a read few threads over the last few months is a lot of things get said here which if said face to face would result in somebody getting punched out - in that sense I think a lot of the time that constitutes gutlessness, cause they wouldn’t get said face to face.
Have seen some good arguments too, and even been in one - it’s hard to argue well with people you disagree with and keep it on track - I find it requires a genuine discipline and awareness to do that - especially online - as someone said - don’t get the context, voice tone or body language - almost makes me blind at times moreso than usual.
For me the only goal should be the truth because its out there somewhere - I don’t care much for anything else - and if as a result of a conversation I haven’t considered what God actually wants from me and then others its all so much hot air and dross to be burnt up at a later date - see 1 Cor 3 I think - sometimes that means learning how to live, relate, associate, have fellowship with people with divergent views.
Cheers
MN
March 20th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
“Am new here, but my observation having a read few threads over the last few months is a lot of things get said here which if said face to face would result in somebody getting punched out.”
I told Phil Baker to his face as I passed him coming out of a lift….that he was ‘the evil that walks the streets’ (a reference to something he said on his blog).
I have also told Pastor Graham M. to his face that I believe he “is in on the con at Revenue.”
I’ve been barked at…but I haven’t been punched in the face by a pastor..
In fact, recently I’ve only had numerous pathetic attempts to buy me off with packs of Chicken Treat.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
To Lance
they must be trying to kill you with the food additives - MSG
Cheers
MN