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 Over the past couple of days I have been reading over a few old controversial threads which are no longer current.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 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
well done saint
just musing
saying someone may have heretical beliefs or are heretical per se has become an insult rather than a statement of fact…
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
ROFLMAO…this is one of the funniest threads in ages.
Greg, I’m still here!! I’ve just been very busy (as someone predicted…I think it might have been Janet?!)…busy leaving one job to return to another and then resign, getting married, moving interstate, and starting a PhD…all the decisions except the getting married one were made in the space of about 6 weeks, so I’m now going to go have a nap to recover from even thinking about it…
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Wow Bec. Do you enjoy stress or something? Hope you recover quickly….
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
glad to heare you’re taking it easy - what’s the phd in?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
wayne, I started work this week and it’s been such a relief to have a break. LOL!!
greg - customary land law in the pacific.
when i have time i might actually get my blog going again and write about it over there!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
here. here.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Bec…. glad you’re still on the planet!!!
What are the chances… two Signposters are writing highly specialised legal doctorates while working full time?
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
LF Abtruth.. “saying someone may have heretical beliefs or are heretical per se has become an insult rather than a statement of fact”… “here. here.”
Encore!
I am sure Athanasius would agree.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Saint,
Firstly I consider myself a commited Christian, however I no longer consider myself Fundementalist… I am not anti-Trinitarian, and I am not saying that I don’t believe in the Trinity.
But even when I was a fundementalist, I have always questioned everything, I don’t take doctrine for granted, I have always enjoyed and read Theology. I know all the doctine of the Trinity well. Yet I have always been symathetic to those who do not hold to the doctrine. After all, it is NEVER explicity taught, only implied. Jesus is explicitly called the Messiah/Christ, the SON of God, the Son of Man. But He is not generally called God the Son. ALmost invariably when NT writers use the word God, they are talking about the Father. Jesus himself said that the Father was greater than Him. The Holy Spirit is never called God the Holy Spirit. The NT authors never talked about God being three persons…. Look I know the arguments against these statements and you CAN call me a heretic if you like, but I do believe that you can be a commited and sincere Christian yet NOT be Trinitarian. Lets face it even NONE of us understand the Trinity, so how can God blame those who don’t accept it. I think what Jesus is more concerned with is whether we fed him when he was hungry and when he was naked did we clothe him?
March 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“Look I know the arguments against these statements and you CAN call me a heretic if you like, but I do believe that you can be a commited and sincere Christian yet NOT be Trinitarian. Lets face it even NONE of us understand the Trinity, so how can God blame those who don’t accept it. I think what Jesus is more concerned with is whether we fed him when he was hungry and when he was naked did we clothe him?”
Submergent: a Christian is one whom God calls friend. And one is a Christian (redeemend and reconciled to God) by grace through faith in Christ. And one becomes a Christian in response to the gospel - a response of repentance and faith. And the gospel is God’s gospel, promised beforehand through his prophets, regarding his Son, a descendant of David, who was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection (Rom 1:14; such statements of the gospel are scattered throughout the NT). So the gospel tells us something about who Jesus is and what he has done for us and for all creation.
So how would you answer the questions I posed above? (And I could go through the gospels and pose a lot more). Who is Jesus? Is he just a great moral teacher? Why is He any different then to say Confucius? Why then should one have faith in Jesus and not Confucius?
March 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Jesus looks nicer in all the photos of him?
June 13th, 2007 at 10:55 am
A friend sent me a list of Australian etiquette - not much help here I konw but funny neverthless:
August 27th, 2007 at 1:45 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.”
You cannot use the slippery slope argument on itself. Ie. you cannot say “If we allow slippery slope arguments, pretty soon everyone will be using them and it will be the end of blogging as we know it.” This is because it is utilising the argument it is trying to disprove.