Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
How do you know the difference?
- Thread starter Kaliani
- Start date
A
Aardverk
Guest
Who? Me? 
ed!
That's a very interesting question. I think that the theological element of your question is fairly simple but the generality of the question is very difficult to answer with anything but examples.
A. Given that MOST things theological can not be known with certainty, anyone arguing with certainty from a position of uncertainty is being a bit 'childish/pig-headed'.
B. We see the 'childish/pig-headed' position here quite often. It usually occurs when someone makes a vague statement, such as, "Every one know that the increasing average age of the population is causing a higher death rate". Then someone else provides evidence that average age is not increasing AND evidence that the death rate is not increasing - thus the original premise is totally destroyed.
All too often we see the person who made the original fallacious statement come back with one or more of these:
1. 'I can assure you that the death rate is increasing; I have the statistics'.
2. 'I can't publish the stats, they are confidential'.
3. They evade addressing the issue.
4. They make insulting remarks.
5. They veer rapidly off-topic.
6. They pick up on other points of argument and avoid the main issue.
7. They make other vague generalizations - often politically motivated.
8. They refuse to set out their logic on the spurious grounds that 'you wouldn't understand it'.
9. 'You're not born again therefore you can't hope to understand'.
10. 'You don't have the holy spirit so you can't understand'.
11. 'You are not a Christian so you can't understand'.
12. 'You are obviously an atheist/Muslim/communist/facist/etc so you can't understand'.
13. 'You have to abandon your rational approach in order to understand'.
14. 'There is no point in you reading The Bible, you have to be a Christian to understand it'. :gah
15. They often reveal their political leanings - as if that gave them some extra credibility.
I have had them all aimed at me in the last year. All of them are indications of childishness/pig-headedness.
The problem is that none of us like to abandon long held beliefs. Creation v Evolution is the simplest example. It crops up quite often in 'General Talk' and people quite reasonably hold to their view. If you go over to the Science section you can see time and again, the arguments against evolution being thoroughly discredited. A nay-sayer may try to make an 'educated' statement which they think destroys the notion of evolution and then the proper scientists demonstrate with facts, why the nay-sayer's claim was completely wrong. Rather than admit his error, the nay-sayer then starts running down the list above to demonstrate his pig-headedness.
ed!That's a very interesting question. I think that the theological element of your question is fairly simple but the generality of the question is very difficult to answer with anything but examples.
A. Given that MOST things theological can not be known with certainty, anyone arguing with certainty from a position of uncertainty is being a bit 'childish/pig-headed'.
B. We see the 'childish/pig-headed' position here quite often. It usually occurs when someone makes a vague statement, such as, "Every one know that the increasing average age of the population is causing a higher death rate". Then someone else provides evidence that average age is not increasing AND evidence that the death rate is not increasing - thus the original premise is totally destroyed.
All too often we see the person who made the original fallacious statement come back with one or more of these:
1. 'I can assure you that the death rate is increasing; I have the statistics'.
2. 'I can't publish the stats, they are confidential'.
3. They evade addressing the issue.
4. They make insulting remarks.
5. They veer rapidly off-topic.
6. They pick up on other points of argument and avoid the main issue.
7. They make other vague generalizations - often politically motivated.
8. They refuse to set out their logic on the spurious grounds that 'you wouldn't understand it'.
9. 'You're not born again therefore you can't hope to understand'.
10. 'You don't have the holy spirit so you can't understand'.
11. 'You are not a Christian so you can't understand'.
12. 'You are obviously an atheist/Muslim/communist/facist/etc so you can't understand'.
13. 'You have to abandon your rational approach in order to understand'.
14. 'There is no point in you reading The Bible, you have to be a Christian to understand it'. :gah
15. They often reveal their political leanings - as if that gave them some extra credibility.
I have had them all aimed at me in the last year. All of them are indications of childishness/pig-headedness.
The problem is that none of us like to abandon long held beliefs. Creation v Evolution is the simplest example. It crops up quite often in 'General Talk' and people quite reasonably hold to their view. If you go over to the Science section you can see time and again, the arguments against evolution being thoroughly discredited. A nay-sayer may try to make an 'educated' statement which they think destroys the notion of evolution and then the proper scientists demonstrate with facts, why the nay-sayer's claim was completely wrong. Rather than admit his error, the nay-sayer then starts running down the list above to demonstrate his pig-headedness.
Mike
Member
I'd say you always have to be mindful and honest with yourself. Do you want to be right so you are right and aren't shown up in the eyes of the board, or are you arguing out of concern for those who are off track. It's so easy for the ego to become the issue rather than the theology.
I don't believe we find Jesus engaged in long "debates". He came to testify to the Truth, and He would use any means to help them see it. Sometimes parables, sometimes questions, sometimes pointed remarks. But He didn't carry on. Either they acknowledged their error or they didn't.
This isn't to say we should never remain in defense of the truth. I'd say most issues discussed aren't worth the division they cause, but some are salvific and call for persistence. Pray on it always, and asked yourself honestly WHY you are defending your point.
I don't believe we find Jesus engaged in long "debates". He came to testify to the Truth, and He would use any means to help them see it. Sometimes parables, sometimes questions, sometimes pointed remarks. But He didn't carry on. Either they acknowledged their error or they didn't.
This isn't to say we should never remain in defense of the truth. I'd say most issues discussed aren't worth the division they cause, but some are salvific and call for persistence. Pray on it always, and asked yourself honestly WHY you are defending your point.
A
Aardverk
Guest
Here are some useful words from Peter Enns:
I honestly did write post#2 before reading those words.
"But here’s the thing about presuppositions: they are not all created equal. They can be tested. Put it this way, if someone asserts that the Bible must behave in a manner “X†because it is God’s word, and yet in your reading of the Bible you are finding a lot of “not X,†you either (1) have to question your reading skills, (2) admit you are so spiritually depraved you can’t read straight, or (3) consider that the assertion may be in error.
That’s the choice, and after being fed a steady diet of #1 and #2, #3 starts looking pretty reasonable.
I remember a discussion like this in graduate school. A professor was discussing how some scholars have a penchant for holding on to a theory long after the evidence piles up against it by talking about exceptions, or stretching the theory to fit the data, etc. He said, “If you find one thing that doesn’t fit the theory, it’s an exception. Two things, a sub-category; Three things, get a new theory.â€
That’s the choice, and after being fed a steady diet of #1 and #2, #3 starts looking pretty reasonable.
I remember a discussion like this in graduate school. A professor was discussing how some scholars have a penchant for holding on to a theory long after the evidence piles up against it by talking about exceptions, or stretching the theory to fit the data, etc. He said, “If you find one thing that doesn’t fit the theory, it’s an exception. Two things, a sub-category; Three things, get a new theory.â€
I honestly did write post#2 before reading those words.
A
Aardverk
Guest
Post #2. Why always them running the gauntlet?unno
Don't worry classik, it never applies to you. You never answer questions directly and when boxed into a corner you just snigger or mock with smilies -
:biglol unno etc. Not nice sometimes 
Unlike you, I am very happy to run the gauntlet and often do.
A
Aardverk
Guest
NO. You can't always be criticised. We are gonna seriously warn the people who critisice the people you described in post #2. They are banned in fact. No more!!! But why should they be criticised?
The OP question was about Childish/pig-headed behavior. I have responded to some of that question; how about you answering it too? The question was also about sincerity and the difference between childish and pig-headed. I didn't address that, so maybe you would like to. Try concentrating on sincerity.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
If one has let it evolve into an argument, then one has allowed it to destroy fellowship. Let others hold to their convictions. Chances are, it comes from their church or their parents. You aren't going to overturn those authorities. Love them, and let it go.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Even then, they may claim an interpretation error on our part, or vice versa.
farouk
Member
this: This is why we need to be clear in our own minds, from the Scriptures, especially when to circle the wagons.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
How many times do you present your view of that scripture at issue?
Classik
Member
I could decode each letter and word of this post... However don't you think we should start addressing the lamentation in the chronology you gave in post #2?
1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Pig headed people never give clear evidence of what they present, but insist they are right and the one who does provide evidence is deemed as being stupid an unlearned in the word. Those who argue in foolishness are the children undisciplined.
Pig headed people never give clear evidence of what they present, but insist they are right and the one who does provide evidence is deemed as being stupid an unlearned in the word. Those who argue in foolishness are the children undisciplined.
If you're itching for an online brawl, how about asking Aadverk to 'step outside' so you don't tear apart the thread?
That's what PMs are for.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
It wasn't you that did that.
Oh sorry about that then.
Mea culpa.