Monday, March 4, 2013

Ultimate Standard When Debating

As a Christian, my ultimate standard is the Bible. If we didn't have the Bible, we wouldn't have a source for ethics. We wouldn't have a reason to believe one thing over another. We would become like the majority of blogs on the internet. They certainly spout a lot of words, but it's mostly inept rhetoric. The one who wins is the one who can slam the other person with sarcasm and better grammar. ;-P

For instance, I find it interesting when people argue against sexual sin with warnings about STDs, financial hurt, blah, blah. Who cares. Has this form of education moved us in a good direction? Uhhh, no. Lol. Really, the only reason to avoid sexual sin, stealing, murder, rape, etc, is because God said they were wrong. Would I be against them if I didn't have an ultimate standard? Ultimately, no. Especially if they helped me. 

I've learned over time to just ignore those who spout rhetoric. Words are cheap. Everyone thinks they're right. But if they have nothing to back it up, shut it down. A serial killer feels that he's doing a good thing when he's killing and raping women. The Christian heading to church on a Sunday has some reason. A homosexual says his lifestyle is all on the up and up. The man who avoids fornication and porn has a standard. The kid in church living with his gf is feeling good. And most will be sure to let you know. But what's their justification? What makes them right? What makes the other guy wrong? We all need an ultimate standard. Personal experience is not an ultimate standard.. Or public opinion.

When it comes down to it, get down to a person's ultimate standard, as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you'll waste time. 

And also, what is your ultimate standard? The personal story you recently read? The song you're listening to at the moment? Do you use your ultimate standard when you write? Or have you bought into the lie that personal experience and witty words are the standard?

And also, be loving. Why must you win a war of words? Are you loving the homosexual that you're debating? Or are your words just clanging cymbals and sounding brass?


Veronica said...

I agree that when debating we should first look for the underlying principles, or ultimate standards, that motivate our opponent's position. But I'm confused by your point about rhetoric and sexual sins, because I would think that if the person I was talking with abided by the standards of best rhetoric or personal benefit, it would be in my best interest to use that to my advantage.
For instance, on the STDs point, if I were trying to prove to someone who disagreed with me on fornication, I would say that when we look at the Bible, God clearly says that there are negative impacts to our sin. Thus, when we look at the fact that abiding by God's laws in the area of sexual relations provides significant benefits and disobeying them leads to significant disadvantages, it would make sense to assume that God does consider fornication a sin. This can tie into another person's underlying desire for self-benefit, while leading them towards your conclusion.

So... I guess I just don't quite understand your point, there. I don't think that you're saying that grammar, rhetoric etcetera shouldn't be used, but I'm not sure what you are saying.

Daniel said...

Mm, valid point. Thanks! Rhetoric and grammar are great. Statistics are great. I was trying to push for more Biblical argumentation. I seem to have too hard a time finding a Christian blog that even uses the Bible. That was what kind of drove this post. I was reading my 5th blog of the day and was kind of hit by how people love to argue for their position but don't really have any ultimate standard, or at least use it.

That's why I say we move people towards their foundations. If you talk about tertiary issues all the time, you're not going to change their minds, because fundamentally it's the foundation that is flawed. And you can't build a solid house on a crumbling foundation.

Hope that's a bit more clear. :-/

Veronica said...

Okay, that makes sense, and I agree; it frustrates me so much when religious pamphlets and whatnot don't even mention the Bible. Thanks for clarifying!

Daniel said...

Awwww, I wanted to post your comment ursie. But you were kind of gross. Pull back the description and I'm okay with posting it, you had a decent argument. ^_^

Also, I would love to hear your perspective on your ultimate standard for life. This was most definitely the question on the post. Ultimately ideas have consequences, and what keeps someone from acts out on ones destructive desires is a great question we can ask.

In a world where rape and abuse are on the rise, asking this question is important. I'd be curious to hear your solution, because the humanist/liberal agenda of the last 100 years is literally destroying our very morality. The very stupidity of the humanist agenda is that it makes every man a god unto himself. Many men are extremely perverted in a day and age where millions are hooked on porn, and are rarely receiving the death penalty for rape and murder. Humanism isn't working. I can't imagine what would happen if all these men who we're keeping held down with drugs, internet, and porn would do if these disappeared. I would be curious to know how you would turn this ship around.

And if anyone wants a tldr on her comment.
"I'm a sociopath because of statement that, God is ultimate standard. What would do if stopped believing in God"
"Reflect on attitude about people."

And she has a legit point. Somewhat. Except for the fact that it's about ultimate questions. Just because I stopped believing in God doesn't mean that eliminates the conscience that God gave me.. Anyways. Made me think. Thanks ursie.

Anonymous said...

I'm not particularly sorry, Daniel, that my description of rape was too graphic and disgusting for you. That was the point. Rape is not neutral, rape is not pleasant, you should not be able to look at it and feel nothing. You should feel provoked and disgusted. The idea that God is the only reason you see rape as bad was very troubling to me. I wanted make you feel something about rape. I wanted you to feel something that went beyond a distant, cold, intellectual ruling.

Of course, rape is not the only crime you mentioned and I could probably have made the same point about murder. I chose to describe rape because I felt it was more evocative.

Daniel said...

Thanks ursie. I appreciate your input. I do try to keep a balance of both truth and love/relationships on this blog, but I do agree that I can flip flop over to one side or the other. :-) Take care.