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 Over the past couple of days I have been reading over a few old controversial threads which are no longer current.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 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Actually, I don’t think you commented in the thread that I read, abtruth.
Again with the heresy! Of course I don’t believe as an absolute that you cannot ever call anything heretical. I am saying that if I believed every comment written on this site, nobody (including me) would qualify as a Christian, nobody would believe in God and nobody would believe in Scripture. I just don’t think that is true, I think more often than not it is a cheap shot and it can be potentially really hurtful.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hey Lionfish… a quick question.
Am I a heretic if I believe that Homosexuality is not a sin? Or am I just liberal?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:09 am
Submergent,
I don’t think you are a heretic.
You’re are just wrong.
It is a sin just like wanking, fornication, adultery, drunkeness, or stealing or lying. We are all sinners you wanker.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:19 am
so if someone says in a roundabout way that God is not sovereign and Jesus didn’t pay for our sins on the Cross… can i say that they are a heretic according to orthodox Christian beliefs????
March 21st, 2007 at 8:10 am
i actually think we’re all heretics. everything each of us says about God falls short of God’s glory.
[and i’m a postmodern liberal]
March 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
Abtruth, you can say whatever you want. I just don’t think that it is a particularly useful rhetorical device and I think that more often than not it reflects poorly on the person making the statement.
And it is so easy and so apt to be close-minded. There are plenty of people who comment here that I disagree with theologically. I might even believe that these opinions get in the way of their relationship with God. But do I really want to start throwing stones on that score? Because I know that there are plenty of people who think the same about me. And I am actually not the one that gets to have the final say on that point.
The slippery slope might be a valid argument but because it can be applied to absolutely everything, it is not a particularly useful or clever argument.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
I would just like to so that those who criticised Lance and I for dealing harshly with SIlentBob when he first appeared on Signposts were sitting on top of a slippery slope.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Slippery slope to where, anyway? Eternal damnation?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
To the hottest fires that are reserved for heretics, lawyers and CCC Fraudsters.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:51 am
Well there you go. To Cheryl…what exactly is a postmodern liberal? what do you believe?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am
I shoud add I understand postmodernism (hasn’t every arts student undertaken that class??) I’m just interested how this works with Christianity for you.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hah!! Laugh? I thought I’d DIE!!! Cheers LF.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
lucky you didn;t or it woul dhave been straight off to the very fires you laugh about for you and your non-Christian web site!
Heretic
March 21st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
What Lionfish!!! Wanking is a sin? and drunkeness too??? Geez what kind of religion is this?
But seriously, I agree with Dan, I don’t think it is often useful to label people heretics.
We must concede that Christianity does not give us a rule book where all the answers are black and white, there is a lot of subjectiveness in how we interperet the Bible…. Who is the arbiter of Orthodoxy, who decides what is heresy and what isn’t.
There are many people who have a sincere faith in Christ, yet do not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity… And I don’t hold it against them, I believe that they hold a legitimate position. Jesus never taught the Trinity. The Bible never spells out exactly the precise nature of Jesus’ deity. Who are we to define what God is? I honestly believe that when this age has been and gone we will all discover how woefully inadequate our doctrines of God are.
Oh yes, the slippery slope… I have fallen into AbTruths slippery slope argument before, and I see he is still clinging tightly to the legitimacy of it….. Come on Ab, just let it go.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
actually i don’t think i use the sloppery slope arguement very often at all as i agree that it is often misapplied and not necessarily used to a logical conclusion
Dan.. i am half taking the piss of course but i said
“so if someone says in a roundabout way that God is not sovereign and Jesus didn’t pay for our sins on the Cross… can i say that they are a heretic according to orthodox Christian beliefs????”
and i would say that this is not a rhetorical device but a statement of fact according to orthodox Christian beliefs… not necessarily according to the Bible but according to orthodox Christian beliefs (ie westminster catechism etc)
sub “there is a lot of subjectiveness in how we interperet the Bible…. Who is the arbiter of Orthodoxy, who decides what is heresy and what isn’t.”
it should be one of our primary aims to remove as much subjectiveness as is possible to find out what the author intended
March 21st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Great moderating guidelines Dan. You must have a lot of patience to hold together the commenting community here with grace and humour.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
There are many people who have a sincere faith in Christ, yet do not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity… And I don’t hold it against them, I believe that they hold a legitimate position. Jesus never taught the Trinity. The Bible never spells out exactly the precise nature of Jesus’ deity. Who are we to define what God is? I honestly believe that when this age has been and gone we will all discover how woefully inadequate our doctrines of God are.Well submergent I can’t call you a h-e-y-r-a-y-t-e-e-k. Maybe I can say that sounds like something that would be said by a heathen, an apostate or someone seriously seriously ignorant and/or misguided. No hard feelings though. Love you heaps, maybe not quite as a brother. And I mean that sincerely.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 am
Please note again… this post was not about posting/moderating guidelines - you will those listed here http://www.signposts.org.au/guidelines/
It was about Dan expressing how she feels when she reads certain arguing techniques.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 am
Maybe Saint, it does sound like something a heathen would say, but I am not a heathen, nor ignorant. I know very well the doctrine and the Biblical support for the Trinity, yet I do not believe that it needs to be the issue that defines orthodoxy. We all know well that the Bible never explicitly teaches it. Who are we to say God = this + this + this, and then say anyone who disagrees is not a CHristian.
I believe that ones commitment to the life and teachings of Christ is a better measure of Christian orthodoxy.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
submergent, just stop it or you will go blind
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Most of the stuff I’ve seen on here is in good humour, although I’ve seen some stuff that would likewise strip the paint off the walls if it could come out of the ether into world.
Sometimes arguing is a function of trying to find out the truth, do good, help etc othertimes its about nothing more than ego, and sometimes alll of that at the same time.
One of the things that has struck me for the last few months in relation to the world at large, and some of the comments here (not throwing stones and you might well argue including my own few offerings) is the first verse of Judges 19 and the last verse of Judges 21 (very much the same).
25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
I increasingly ask myself even amongst Christians - what’s changed?
The rest of the world is likely to go to hell in a hand basket at some point, but I’d dearly like to see that change amongst the saints (no reference to the Saint above).
Cheers
MN
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Anybody want a laugh? I just read this comment:
“It was about Dan expressing how she feels when she reads certain arguing techniques”
And realised that my asumption (over twelve months old) that Phil & Dan were both male & brothers & brothers was wrong.
So it’s really DanIELLE McCredden?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Heh. If you thought we were both male, then why did you assume that we were brothers? Don’t worry Reve, lots of people make that assumption (I must have a male typing style).
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
“…yet I do not believe that it needs to be the issue that defines orthodoxy. We all know well that the Bible never explicitly teaches it. Who are we to say God = this + this + this, and then say anyone who disagrees is not a CHristian.
I believe that ones commitment to the life and teachings of Christ is a better measure of Christian orthodoxy.”
I know atheists who are more orthodox Christians by your definition than some Christians.
Let’s put it this way. God has revealed Himself as Trinity. That doesn’t mean that we can fully understand and explicate such a mystery. But if that is how He has revealed Himself to us, can we say we know Him if we deny that?
How does a sincere follower of Christ who denies the “doctrine of the Trinity” as you put it, account for Christ? Why did some scribes mutter against Jesus being able to forgive sins - was it becasue the only one who could forgive sin was God alone…what was their understanding of what Christ was saying about himself that upset them so? And yet, what would a sincere follower of Christ say when asked: who did Christ pray to? Or what do they make of say Luke’s gospel, where he writes ‘and Jesus, filled with the Spirit…’? Whose spirit? What would there answer be if we asked them: who is Jesus?
I sometimes wonder if these sorts of views come about because we have not been attentive enough to what the Bible says about God and/or because we are ignorant of history. There is a reason I think, why in the history of the church, the Trinity is a sort of “acid test” of orthodoxy.
Perhaps too there are some who have a wrong expectation of how it is that God speaks to us. They look for propositional statement about God in the Bible (cf “Jesus never taught the Trinity. The Bible never spells out exactly the precise nature of Jesus’ deity. ) whereas God invites us to know Him as we ourselves are fully known. And how does God make Himself known?
This doesn’t mean that one who holds such views as “a sincere follower” but who doesn’t hold to the “doctrine of the Trinity” cannot come to know God better, more truly…but I don’t think one would be doing them a service by saying: that’s alright dear, as long as you are sincere.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
MN - please overlook those of us with an earthy snese of humor. We do not mean to offend.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
“At worst the people you disagree with are godless infidels, surely they deserve a laugh before they go to hell.” I think that’s the funniest thing i’ve read in ages… nicely done.
No ’slippery slope’? Hmmm… that the thin end of the wedge for stiffling debate…
(siffled chuckle to self!)
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
re 52 - I too thought Dan was a guy for ages…and I assumed Dan and Phil were a couple!! Or that Phil might have been a girl (you know, as in Phillippa!)
so there you go reve, you’re not the only silly nut around here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Well for what it is worth, the thread that I was reading over that prompted this post was coming out of the closet, in which I first publicly owned up to being a female.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Just read that post…yes there’s somethng to be said for messing with people’s assumptions…I often wish I had chosen a clever blogging name, not my own…there’s just no mystery…
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hi Lionfish
I enjoy the earthy sense of humour….. it’s good!
The issue I raise is about the spirit of the “argument” approach vis a vieiehat Dan has raised, is the tendency demonstrate brotherly (and sisterly) love by metaphorically beating the shit out of one another. Nothing wrong with robust debate and difference of opinion - its necessary and good, and this forum is good a well.
The issue that runs with that is the one I alluded to with the Judges reference, which is the tendency to do what we see fit as opposed to seek what God wants whether we like it or not.
Look I’m as guilty of that as anyone, but I try and be conscious of it at least occasionally, otherwise how on earth do I reflect Christ to you or anyone else?
And what’s the point of making a good argument or striving with people as Paul did, if its just using a blunt instrument to bludgeon people into submission to my almighty and most important will? Incidentally I do think there is a place for the blunt instrument, but if I use it all the time what am I really achieving?
Its bloody hard work arguing well.
Cheers
MN