posted
It depends on whether the persuasion is about getting your way or about enlightening the persuadee.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I don't think that all persuasion is manipulative.
How do you make a distinction? The negative quality I can imagine is deceptiveness, but you've already acknowledged that referring to scriptures you don't believe in is not necessarily dishonest.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on whether the persuasion is about getting your way or about enlightening the persuadee.
That seems like a pretty fine hair to split. I like to win an argument, but on matters which I think are likely to be addressed in scripture, I think enlightenment is more likely and important goal.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am really not getting this. Perhaps it would be helpful if katharina gave an example of the kind of use of scripture that she considers manipulative?
For example: the repeated shellfish shell game used in debates with Christians about the morality of homosexual actions.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" are the other leading contenders for leading roles in manipulative use of scriptures.
Somehow it's hard to tell if the misuse reflects manipulation or ignorance. I understand some people don't know about the Council of Jerusalem or haven't read the entire chapters related to the other two verses. But sometimes the taking out of context is deliberate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" are the other leading contenders for leading roles in manipulative use of scriptures.
I think those are likely used primarily out of ignorance. I can't imagine many people are likely to be manipulated by clichéd use of those verses.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Attempts to manipulate don't get a pass because they are ineffective.
I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you feel about the people who don't share your faith quoting the parts of scripture you do share? Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
I should have been more explicit. I was talking about my motivations there. I can't speak for others.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, hypothetically, if your understanding of your scripture was flawed, but you were not aware of that, would it be offensive and wrong if a non-believer talked to you about what the scripture seemed to mean and it changed your understanding (for the better)?
Returning to MattP's simple but highly illuminative example, I don't think MattP cares whether anyone drinks tea. He probably has no stake in "winning" and getting a member to drink iced tea. But let's flip it around:
Mormon: I can't drink black tea, but I can drink green tea. MattP: Actually I heard that the LDS leadership clarified that any drink made from the tea plant was off limits. (Points to relevant documentation.) Mormon: Oops. You're right. (Alternate response: how dare you use my scriptures as a weapon against me!)
Oh, by the way? The above modified example really happened with, I believe, different people involved. (Can't guarantee it wasn't MattP. )
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were in another country and was arrested, I wouldn't appeal to US laws just because I believe in them. I would have to state my case from within the framework of their legal system, because that's the system they use.
I don't believe that the Bible was written by a Divine Creator, but it's still an important document in the lives of many people, both Christian and non-Christian, and it would be silly for me to discuss a religious topic without addressing it.
Further, I accept that many people DO view the Bible as the utmost authority, and that if I want to change their mind about something, they only way to do so is to point out to them where the Bible supports my view.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe that the Bible was written by a Divine Creator, but it's still an important document in the lives of many people, both Christian and non-Christian, and it would be silly for me to discuss a religious topic without addressing it.
Absolutely. I agree. Of course, here we're just talking about discussion, not debate or persuasion.
quote:Further, I accept that many people DO view the Bible as the utmost authority, and that if I want to change their mind about something, they only way to do so is to point out to them where the Bible supports my view.
It is not the only way. There are other ways. You could convince them that the Bible is false.
You could also prove your point to them in a way that doesn't involve religion at all. It's not guaranteed, as you never know which way they'll deal with the cognitive dissonance, but I wonder if it might be more effective, especially in the long run. I know that it has been for me. (Being convinced, that is, not convincing others.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's something important to me, I would try to persuade someone using a variety of means, but I wouldn't rule out using their scripture, even though I generally try to be pretty respectful when I discuss things.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and LDS all quote non-apocryphal books of the Tanach/Old Testament to each other?
Sure. That's fine.
So, taking this a step further, what about someone who believes in the same scripture, but not to the same level of fidelity you do?
example: I (A Catholic with a relativistic interpretation of scripture) am approached by a literalist Lutheran (in this case my brother-in-law) who tries telling me that I'm going to Hell because I haven't REALLY accepted Christ (or whatever the argument is). Am I being offensive by pointing out those areas of scripture which I believe contradict whatever he's saying, or that I believe should be interpreted differently?
Because while on one level we believe in the same scripture, we believe in it in vastly different ways.
I'll say to his approach that I find what he's saying quite rude and uninformed (imo) but it seems ludicrous to take particular offense that he is (again, in my opinion) misusing my scripture...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It would be dishonest and manipulative for me to argue my point with what I believed to be a false and inaccurate report.
I disagree, as long as you're upfront about the fact that you don't believe in the report. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying that even if the report is true you disagree with the conclusion being drawn.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree on your assessment of the primary motivations for using those scriptures in arguments.
I have seen Christians, to each other, say "judge not, lest ye be judged." Why is their motivation in using this out-of-context quote any less questionable?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
I admit, that I don't care for it much either. I agree that in the ideal case that it would be best to either convert people to agnosticism or atheism. Either that or try to convince them on secular grounds.
That said, while you've pointed out that an approach not grounded in scripture would work on you, there do exist people (indeed, a fair number) who would proudly proclaim that such an approach would never work on them. Especially if we hit a topic unlike the OP where the distinction between a religious idea and a secular idea is less clear (or maybe I should rephrase, where religious ideas may have very large secular repercussions). Say evolution, gay marriage, end times apocalyptic theories, etc.
In these cases, I think the lesser of two evils is to engage them on their own terms rather than just completely take oneself out of the conversation entirely. That said, I still find it distasteful and thus skip such conversations entirely, except to correct factual misconceptions about what atheists (specific or otherwise) think/do/propose.
I would admit though, that when the conversation is important (unlike the OP), I do like to at least point to reasonable arguments that are made by people of belief X even if I do not share belief X. e.g. Christian scientists that find a religious rationale for not believing in Intelligent Design or Catholic politicians that find religious reasoning for not adhering to papal suggestions on marriage/abortion laws.
From my POV, this is not *incredibly* different from engaging on scriptural grounds, but YMMV.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reply to the very first poster who started this thread:
I don't think anyone but Christ can say that any one people (read: nation) will 'burn in hell for eternity' although that would be His right to do so. Remember though, that Christ is a Just God but also a Merciful God as well, meaning that many people who some may think don’t belong in heaven will be there. I believe there will be many Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Baptists, Methodists, Scientologists, "Mormons", agnostics, atheists, and so on and so forth, that will be going to both heaven and ‘hell’. But no, I don’t think Jews are fated to 'burn in hell' as some extremist Christians like to think; there are no scriptures in the Bible to support the contemptible condemnation of a whole nation of people the Lord loves very much; loved so much so that He chose the Jews, of all the nations on the earth, to be born a Jew himself! Besides, without the Jews, there would've been no Bible for the Christians to butcher to bits and rail against other religions. Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament (a fact that most mainstream Christians and some Orthodox Jews don’t like to acknowledge)... I wonder how they feel about that? Would they be so quick to rail and bicker about God’s people? Probably... all of us belong to the same eternal family, no matter how we would wish we weren’t really related to certain people in our lives. But I guess since we’re of the same family, we’re bound to bicker and argue… siblings… go figure…
Seems to me that mankind shouldn't be in the role of actually 'judging' anyone regarding eternity. That's a role reserved specifically for Christ alone and has nothing to do with someone else's theories about whether some race or nation or religious sect is 'saved' or 'condemned to hell'. Again, Christians should know this.
Christians should also know better than to assign ANYONE to one extreme or the other, to heaven or hell: doesn’t “judge not lest ye be judged” sound familiar? I expect such people who assign such harsh condemnation will be the very individuals who populate the lower kingdoms of heaven no matter how much they go about 'preaching in the name of Christ', twisting and burning on the spits down below, but then, there's always repentance while we still live here on this earth…
Being a religious person myself, I'm more concerned with my own salvation than the salvation of people who can't seem to stop arguing about such things. After all, heaven will be full of people we never thought would make it and they'll feel the same about us in return.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any problem with discussing Scripture with non-believers. I don't even have a problem with their motivations. My problem is that most (with some exceptions, MrSquicky for example) do it from a place of so much misunderstanding. I am not a biblical scholar, but even I get tired and frustrated by time and again having to clarify what in my understanding are simple misinterpretations of Scripture.
For example the idea that Scripture is supposed to be "consistent".
quote:Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament (a fact that most mainstream Christians and some Orthodox Jews don’t like to acknowledge)
Not to nitpick, but I suspect that it's a "fact" that -- definitionally -- no Orthodox Jews acknowledge.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I still don't care for it, probably because it still strikes me as inherently manipulative, and I do think that's a problem. In general, you don't manipulate peers that you respect.
I admit, that I don't care for it much either. I agree that in the ideal case that it would be best to either convert people to agnosticism or atheism. Either that or try to convince them on secular grounds.
That said, while you've pointed out that an approach not grounded in scripture would work on you, there do exist people (indeed, a fair number) who would proudly proclaim that such an approach would never work on them. Especially if we hit a topic unlike the OP where the distinction between a religious idea and a secular idea is less clear (or maybe I should rephrase, where religious ideas may have very large secular repercussions). Say evolution, gay marriage, end times apocalyptic theories, etc.
In these cases, I think the lesser of two evils is to engage them on their own terms rather than just completely take oneself out of the conversation entirely. That said, I still find it distasteful and thus skip such conversations entirely, except to correct factual misconceptions about what atheists (specific or otherwise) think/do/propose.
I would admit though, that when the conversation is important (unlike the OP), I do like to at least point to reasonable arguments that are made by people of belief X even if I do not share belief X. e.g. Christian scientists that find a religious rationale for not believing in Intelligent Design or Catholic politicians that find religious reasoning for not adhering to papal suggestions on marriage/abortion laws.
From my POV, this is not *incredibly* different from engaging on scriptural grounds, but YMMV.
Explain how the original post was not important?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. If I find something of value in it, whether it's a teaching, story, or whatever, it's mine.
Good call, Scott. It's impossible for any particular group to be proprietary about any type of scripture. Some fundamentalist Mormons find all sorts of stuff about survivalism and the New World Order and the sacred land of Manti, Utah, in the Book of Mormon (the sort of stuff that led to the Bo Gritz-era excommunications). Historians like Jan Shipps and Dan Vogel and Gordon Wood read the same book and find descriptions of nineteenth century revivalism in King Benjamin but don't believe in its theology. Liberation theologians cling to 4 Nephi but condemn Captain Moroni as a miltarist.
Similarly, fundamentalist Protestants find the end times in Ezekiel and Daniel; socialists find Acts inspiring; but feminists denounce Paul. And of course virtually all Christians have assimilated Tanak, but also come up with elaborate explanations (following that same Paul) for why Leviticus no longer applies. Further, though they claim it, they generally don't bother with most of the stuff outside Genesis and Isaiah, other than proof texts.
All sorts of different groups use scripture for different reasons, taking what they like and rejecting what they don't. Demanding that people treat it in any particular way is 1)impossible and 2)causes only headaches.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is more than one side of "non-believer" scripture study that is getting tossed around. Those who have a particular faith are not explaining themselves very well. Frankly, I admit that I probably can't do much better. There seems to be three levels of discussion that are getting talked about in this post:
1) Discussions about Scriptural topics are not that offensive. For instance because it was brought up, talking about the Word of Wisdom is great. There is a small history behind the LDS Health code that is rich and worthy of discussion. Doesn't take faith in the doctrine or its scriptural sources to evaluate how it has been discussed and the relavant material.
The general topic of salvation for the Jews for Christians is also something worthy of bringing up. You can evaluate the many directly relavant passages that deal specifically with that issue. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is with the idea of examination and not persuasion.
Research and sharing that research is not problematic.
2) Arguing for specific doctrinal beliefs from the Scriptures that you don't believe in to convince a believer to change their doctrinal beliefs is wrong to most believers. It has less to do with argumentation and more to do with authority. No one who lacks the belief in Scriptures, to many religious, has any right to interpret the scriptures for them. To do so means one of two things; you are an antagonist out to defame (or at least distort) the faith or a spiritual usurper. You hold no spiritual credentials and therefore are illigitamate. Scriptures are to most religious more than words on a piece of paper.
That is why, no matter the ends, an atheist trying to show a Muslim that in the Koran terrorism is wrong just doesn't work. You might feel good about trying, but that more likely makes the extremist Muslim want to kill you that much more. You have no authority and in fact have anti-authority. In the Christian venacular, you are Satan quoting Scripture.
Not that I personally hold someone trying this with scorn myself. For me I find it rather amusing. It comes off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove theology, only in the reverse.
To come out and say you don't believe in the Scriptures while arguing from the Scriptures might be more truthful, but it is even less smart. You automatically are arguing from a position the believer doesn't have, and yet use the Scriptures as if you hold the texts in the same position of authority. Therefore, your best bet is to follow 1 above or go directly to:
3) It is best to simply argue that the Scriptures are false, or mythical with good stories and moral teachings. You have pretty much made that declaration up front. It is therefore prudent to continue the discussion from that line of reasoning. Otherwise, you are back to 2 where you are considered a spiritual usuper or charlatan, if not satanic. You hold no authority and therefore cannot talk as if you have any authority.
Just because you can discuss the scriptures doesn't mean you have the right to argue for a theological position. If anything you have less of a right unless you are trying to persuade them to a different theological belief. Then you become a religious contender.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It comes off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove theology, only in the reverse.
I'm afraid the analogy is broken. It should come off as a Creationist trying to use scientific papers to prove a scientific theory using the methods of science. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm afraid the idea that only believers have the right to "their" scriptures is as ludicrous as the idea that only scientists have the right to "their" electrical currents.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My initial reaction was much like the others' -- why fight others' beliefs? -- but then I realized: Sid's post is way more interesting than "don't bother." He has detail. "Worth arguing with" is a *compliment*. Caring is a good thing.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do I. That is not at all what I said. I decried a very specific situation - I am not interested in expanding it to a generality, and attempts to characterize my statements as such are mistaken.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, TomD my point is that the analogy is broken. How many scientists scorn Creationists when they clearly use scientific papers to prove their points? What comes across is the idea that they aren't using the scientific method and therefore have no authority on scientific matters. They are not "true" scientists.
Well, that is the feeling behind non-believers using scriptures to prove their points. It isn't an exact analogy, but it is a broken one. There is a disconnect between the underlying assumptions, methodologies, and premises that believers and unbelievers have and it doesn't have to do with the perfection of the Scriptures. If that was the case, I would not understand what mph and Kat was talking about as Mormons because "scriptural perfection" is not a basic belief.
Strangly, I haven't run into the situation enough to be overly offended. My reaction to this post was confusion. Was the question about the historical interpretations of Jews as not saved? Was the question about why a Jew wouldn't be saved, or if they ever would be saved? When I realized what the post was about, I just had to laugh at the idea that a non-believer wanted to argue a theological belief. As if the believer would take him seriously without getting into a discussion about the authority of Scripture as a guide to anything.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, MrSquickly, how do you feel about Creationists? My guess is you aren't too fond of them wanting Creationism taught in schools or colleges. What do they use when they discuss Creation and Evolution? They at least quote from scientists (and hence scientific papers) don't they?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Literal Biblical Creationists don't get the Bible right. They worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
I don't have a lot of respect for them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The next time I see a creationist use a scientific paper to prove a point will be the first time.
You're missing a validly in there. They use scientific papers (or, more often, papers they claim to be scientific) all the time. I don't think that I've ever seen one used in a valid, responsible manner by a creationist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Literal Biblical Creationists [...] worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
Can you explain why you feel this way?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:They worship themselves and what they want to believe over what they consider God's word.
That's an awfully presumptuous allegation - that you can see the deepest desires of the hearts of millions of people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Literal Biblical creationism is untenable. There are two creation stories that are mutually exclusive.
I see it as exceedingly unlikely (though technically still possible) to read it without bringing what you want to see there as more important than what it says and coming away with a belief that it was meant to be treated as literal.
And you know, I'd probably be more respectful if the vast majority of creationists I've ever discussed this with even realized that there was this enormous contradiction, but, as with other matters, I've found that that's not consistent with how they use the Bible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
