The children of darkness have more...

[Sparkey]

“For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light... He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.†Luke 16:8,15

Your persuasive writings will differ in significant ways from what you hear on crossfire-style talk shows and “news†programs. In made-for-TV arguments, people set out to defeat other people’s positions and thus “win.†Persuasive writing is more exploratory—aimed at locating new ways of understanding something or at finding a tentative solution to a problem. Such arguments lead with analysis rather than position-taking. The claims you arrive at in an analysis are, in fact, arguments—analytical arguments.

Here are some of the differences between argument as it is too often conducted in the media and argument of the type cultivated by persuasive writers:

Arguments vs. Argumentative

Opinions vs. Opinionated​

A persuasive, analytical, well written argument:
• has more than two sides
• moves from much more carefully defined and smaller (less global) claims
• seeks out common ground between competing points of view rather than solely emphasizing difference
• uses potentially contradictory evidence to test and qualify claims rather than ignoring such evidence or housing it solely as concessions (“okay, I’ll give you that point, but …â€) and refutations (“here is why you are wrong!â€)
• adopts a civil and nonadversarial ethos (self-presentation) and rhetorical stance (relationship with the audience)
• avoids stating positions as though they were obviously and self-evidently true
• avoids cheap tricks such as straw man—misrepresenting or trivializing another’s position so that it is easy to knock down and blow away—and name calling and other of the logical fallacies
• includes much more evidence and careful analysis of that evidence

Taken from one of my textbooks, "Writing Analytically," Sixth Edition
David Rosenwasser, Jill Stephen. © 2012, 2009, 2006 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning with permission under Fair Use.

 

[YosefHayim]

They have less if they don't have Jesus.

 

[Sparkey]

Less shrewdness? Orly? Of course we are told to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, but of those who have received such commands, and in comparison to the unsaved, who has more shrewdness? Who is more practiced? Seems to me that Jesus himself observed what He declared as true. But perhaps I should follow the advice that is being suggested by the writers of the article and book that I've quoted and become shrewd in my dealings with others and you? It is good for me then to avoid 'binaries' and black vs. white dichotomies and simply ask, "How would you suggest that I put that light to use here and become more persuasive?" That way I may learn more, right?

 

[YosefHayim]

I guess I misunderstood. I was thinking materialism and valuables. Saw the title, and didn't really compare it to the quotes.

Well shrewdness is based on intentions right? The dark is shrewd in deception, the light is shrewd in truth.

So are you asking how to be more persuasive with evidence rather than experience and belief?




Not sure If I'm understanding right. Been staying up to late.

 

[Sparkey]

Not sure If I'm understanding right. Been staying up to late.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to address and what is being addressed in my classroom this quarter. How to become more persuasive by leading with probing question as opposed to counter-point for example. What I seek to find here is collaborators who agree with the premise and may advance ideas of their own.

You've observed:

Well shrewdness is based on intentions right? The dark is shrewd in deception, the light is shrewd in truth.

Care to speak more on this? May we do well when we follow their examples while we resist and eschew evil? How, please?

 

[YosefHayim]

staying up to late. Yes, that's what I'm trying to address and what is being addressed in my classroom this quarter. How to become more persuasive by leading with probing question as opposed to counter-point for example. What I seek to find here is collaborators who agree with the premise and may advance ideas of their own.

......

Care to speak more on this? May we do well when we follow their examples while we resist and eschew evil? How, please?

In regards to shrewdness, I had to look at some commentary since I was Leary on this.

The unjust steward is not set before us as an example in cheating his master, or to justify any dishonesty, but to point out the careful ways of worldly men. It would be well if the children of light would learn wisdom from the men of the world, and would as earnestly pursue their better object. The true riches signify spiritual blessings; and if a man spends upon himself, or hoards up what God has trusted to him, as to outward things, what evidence can he have, that he is an heir of God through Christ? The riches of this world are deceitful and uncertain. Let us be convinced that those are truly rich, and very rich, who are rich in faith, and rich toward God, rich in Christ, in the promises; let us then lay up our treasure in heaven, and expect our portion from thence.

-Matthew Henry's Commentary

​

I'll have to read the parable in full to get a better idea of it later. But what I'm gathering is that evil men have acted shrewdly in this world to get to their goals, than believers have acted to earn their spiritual goals.

When I said that there is intentions behind what makes shrewdness a good or a bad thing, I say that because shrewdness is being smart, sly, and cunning. Hitler burned down the German parliament, creating the Hegelian Dialectic Reichtag Fire. Hitler acted shrewdly to gain power and pull of an evil agenda.

However, it took shrewd people to expose these agendas, the men behind them, and so forth. Another example of shrewdness is when David acted like a madman, drooling all over himself when he was brought to Achish.
So shrewdness can be used for evil, or used for a good purpose. Wouldn't it have been a shrewd act for the numerous times Jesus called pharisees out on their screw-ups such as the time he told the first without sin to throw the stone?

I looked at Strong's concordance to see if there was a difference between Luke 16:8 and Matthew 10:28

Both words are all the same, defining wisdom and intellect.
φρόνιμος
1) intelligent, wise
2) prudent, i.e. mindful of one's interests




But as for being persuasive, Just stick to facts. Examine both sides, hear both sides, and look for inconsistencies in opposing views. Attack the subject, but not the person.

 

[Sparkey]

First, I'm glad that I've asked and appreciate the thoughtful reply.

But as for being persuasive, Just stick to facts. Examine both sides, hear both sides, and look for inconsistencies in opposing views. Attack the subject, but not the person.

Yes, regarding persuasiveness. Instead of objecting right off the bat if we listen and check if we hear well? What danger is that to the truth? Also, there is that chance that out of the mouths of babes and all will come that nugget you asked God for in prayer and forgot about so long ago. I don't think that persuasiveness may be found through force, one-to-one "opponent" squares off against another (or against many: Yay David, Boo Goliath) and am trying to learn methods (even shrewd methods) while going to a local college that might help me serve our Members better.

"Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war," is such a persuasive song and it has a catchy beat. Not sure how to dislodge the work that was done by that movement so long ago, the concept is a sticky at the top of every thread here on CF.net. We need a good beat and song for the James 3:18 verse.