It is easy for one to believe he is able to convince even the most obstinate individuals. Unfortunately, this is often a sign of pride and self-righteousness, rather than charisma or rhetorical skill. Scripture offers the following advice in regard to correcting and/or reproving others.
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you." – Matthew 7:2
"He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man and he will increase in learning." – Proverbs 9:7-9
Apparently, some people are not worth spending too much time and energy on, but does that mean we should just give up on them? If so, when and how? Certainly, we should be humble and prayerful in our argumentation and be vigilant for signs of fruitlessness in dialog. I wonder, though, how we are to know when a debate is not worth continuing and how we are end it without feeling guilty for abandoning someone, particularly a brother/sister in Christ, to his/her grievous errors. Thoughts?
I don’t know, but I’m with you in seeking answers and/or suggestions.
I guess the part I left out up there in my off-the-cuff, but long-winded response is that the use of reason to support one’s point(s) is really a very deceptive bait & switch if one will not then defer to reason in the on-going discussion.
It’s occurred to me, as a veteran of many arguments and quarrels (some religious, some secular) that if someone isn’t listening to you, sometimes you simply need the confidence of your convictions to not continue a conversation, especially when there never was one to begin with.
You always give it your best, and sometimes you just have to move on and hope your example will be used to reel people.
My mom is an obstinate Atheist and getting into conversations with her about the Lord is like talking to a brick wall that screams back at you. So I respectfully change the subject and continue to pray for her. There is a verse (sorry I cant remember the exact book/chapter/number) that says something about giving someone the Good News twice, then if they are still unwilling to hear it, wash your hands and move on.
Oddly enough, I’ve been pondering this very same question today… I think what it boils down to is that it isn’t about the argument–at least not of the type that heroes like Chesterston and Lewis engaged. If two people of any viewpoint sit down and agree to some civilized ground rules and then proceed to argue well, they can get on famously, enrich their minds, still walk away (probably to the pub) not having convinced each other, but they’ll both be the better for it. An absolutely perfect example of this is the various conflagrations with Theo (too numerous to list here). At virtually every turn, Funky or Jerry or me (or sometimes all of us) will have a good civilized argument with Theo, and we’ll generally avoid (or at least try really hard to avoid) namecalling, and we’ll state our arguments, thresh away the chaff, get down to what’s really at issue, and then come to an impasse–which of course is no surprise at all. But generally a good time is had by all, and though I can hardly speak for Theo (he’d lambaste me good for trying), I can say that I (and I dare say Funky and Jerry) have been made the stronger (more complete) by such engagements. Speaking for myself, I see Theo as a friend–of the internet variety at least.
Now there are some people who aren’t at all interested in the argument, they’re interested in being right–and this is an equal-opportunity vice, striking right, left, and middle, religious or otherwise with equal frequency and dexterity, and usually causes its victim to be nothing more than a profound boor. And I guess what’s interesting (telling) is that, irrespective of the particular religious (or antireligious) views being spouted by the boor, what we are witnessing is a spiritual problem: pride, insecurity, self-satisfaction, and such like.
So in trying to negotiate peace between say a hypothetical devout Calvinist and a hypothetical devout Catholic, to approach the problem with civility is a good approach. But this is to ask: what common ground do we have? can we agree that any of your or my arguments are faulty or maybe not as strong as we first let on? can we agree to avoid anathemas? can we agree that the meaning of certain proof-texts is far from clear? can we agree to not use logical fallacies or admit to them when they are correctly identified? &c. This is what civilized people do. That is how civilized people argue. And if none of this “preparing the ground” can be done… then we are not engaging in a civilized argument at all. We are engaging in a shouting match, no matter how civilized we pretend to be.
Well… hope that made sense
Trish, people may or may not believe what you say, but they’ll always believe what you do.
Cheers!