Here is another quick thought where I'm going to point you all in a direction but not go through extensive scripture citation.
When one reads the scripture, specifically the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, one realizes that Jesus and the disciples frequently quote from and reference the Biblical writings of the prophets. These writings are what Christians call the Old Testament of the Bible today. The Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) were deeply studied by pious Jews of the time of Christ, of course. The Gospel tells how the scholars at the Temple admired and were astonished by the knowledge of the young boy Jesus.
Most Christians when asked to name an example of Jesus citing scripture would think of the famous exchange between Jesus as he fasted in the desert before commencing his public ministry and Satan, who tried to tempt Jesus away from his mission. This is recounted in Matthew 4:1-11.
Here is the point that I'm going to make for you to consider.
Whenever anyone "cites scripture" (to use a modern expression that everyone takes for granted these days) they did not do it with the technique or attitude that people utilize today. Today people having "dueling scripture" mentality that is based upon "knowing where to look for 'the answer' in the Bible" and thus they center upon (somewhat pridefully) citing the "numbers" (book, chapter and verse). No one, not Jesus, not the Apostles, nor Satan himself, did that during Biblical times. No one said, "If you look in scroll number four and read the tenth sentence it says etc etc etc." People simply said "It is written that..."
Then the devil took him into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down; for it is written 'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" Matthew 4:5-7.
Read for yourselves any place in the New Testament where scripture is cited and you will see that no one gave reference points, such as the book's name, the chapter or the verse, and virtually all used the unchallenged opening phrase to their quotation "it is written."
Why is this important and why am I pointing this out tonight in this blog entry?
I've repeatedly advised my readers that one cannot understand God's words, whether in the Bible or the Qur'an, unless one understands the context of the times. Most people could not read or write and the word of God was an oral experience for them, as God's word was given to the people by the priests, and learned verbally from scholars and family members. No one had the mindset that they had to "prove it is 'in the Bible'" by citing chapter and verse (or scroll or line). So Satan cites scripture and Jesus gives a counter citation, but neither says to the other (duh) "where does it say that in the Bible?" The Bible, of course, did not exist in the chapter and verse form that Christians use today and that is my point.
If one wants a truly authentic emulation of Jesus and the disciples, one needs to read and comprehend the entire Bible, not memorize the key "trick phrases" and citations that bolster one's familiar arguments and beliefs. No one challenged each other "where does it 'say that'" back in the times of Jesus because no one would even think of incorrectly citing scripture.
In other words, authentic knowers of God's word are not "defensive" in their attitudes, as many are today.
So Satan cites scripture without even saying "where" that scripture comes from and "who said it" and about what. In return, Jesus does the same thing, citing scripture without saying who said it and "where it comes from."
Generations of Christian scholars (yep, those early church fathers, both Catholic and Orthodox) performed detailed study of the scripture and footnoting so that future generations would know who and what Jesus and the others were citing.
So if you have an annotated Bible, you can determine by reading the footnote that Satan was citing from the Book of Psalms, while Jesus replied citing Deuteronomy.
Do you understand the two points that I am trying to make? The first point is that neither Satan nor Jesus "came prepared with citations up their sleeves to have that debate." Both so well know the scripture that when the dialogue took place, each could think of the most pertinent citation to make on the spot. How many people do that today? Rather, moderns are proud that they have "pre loaded scripture" that they can cite chapter and verse for the most familiar of purposes and well worn paths of debate, rather than understanding the meaning of the entire Bible, and then drawing from it as needed on the spot, regardless of the occasion for Biblical reference. So if one really wants to be "like Jesus" or the "genuine Apostles," one would have to have mastery of the entire Bible in its content and context, not hopping around extracting and memorizing favorite useful sayings, like they are bullet points for debate cues.
The second point is the temptation that an index system (chapter and verse) provides to those who distill everything into numbers and punch lines. Whenever humans have a technological advance, there is always a plus and a minus. The plus to having written Bibles that are inexpensively printed and able to be read by all is that obviously it is the great equalizer that rich or poor, all can have God's word to have and reference. The minus is that the word of God becomes less of an atmosphere that one is verbally immersed within and becomes, simply put, another intellectual tool.
A reverse snobbery takes place. How often do you see a bumper sticker with just a citation rather than the words? For example, you'd see the above dialogue as a bumper sticker that simply says "Matthew 4:5-7." Those who are "in the know" would see that bumper sticker and recognize that the people who owned that car are citing that verse for some reason known to them. But where is the knowledge (remember, knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not of humans' own doing) in saying "Matthew 4:5-7?" Rather, it is tempting to be smug, inviting those who know that verse by number to see your bumper stick and think "Oh, what a great Christian I am; I know what topic they are citing." If you are really of the "texting" and LOL generation, one can say to one's friends "457" and that would be a code word for "Satan and Jesus debating" or "Jesus being tempted." Those who are snide could given themselves user names such as Brit457 and those "in the know" would realize that "Brit" is calling him or herself a tempter, or a refuter of Satan.
Humans are like huge walking slippery slopes of ice where it seems that they cannot resist any temptation to parse or to package the complex and thoughtful and meaningful into sound bytes and killer debating points and eventually smug self referential code talk.
This is why I really avoid that mindset and virtually never walk around citing scripture. I have to painfully look up in the Bible every time I cite scripture (even the ones I often blog about) since my mind just refuses to think of the Bible as a series of numbered "points" to make.
All of you need to realize that it is "not Biblical" to cite scripture in a numeric, catchphrase, or "prove it to me" type of way. People (even Satan) were expected to know the fullness of scripture and then ad hoc state "it is written" a truthful statement or paraphrasing from the scripture, without even "showing off" who said it in the first place. I mean, in Matthew 4:5-7, Jesus is citing GOD, but Jesus himself does not say to Satan, "Well, God himself said the following on the fifth scroll first turning first line....." Everyone was authentic Biblical scholars at that time and it would never occur to anyone to feel they have to state exactly word for word and number by number who said what "in the Bible."
Jesus said to him, "It is written further, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God'" (Matthew 4:7)
Jesus is "citing" the following:
"You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test, as you did at Massa" (Deuteronomy 6:16).
Suppose that debate was taking place today? Can you not well imagine certain Christians who would (in playing Satan's part) reply to Jesus:
1. Where does it say that? Cite me the book, chapter and verse.
2. You did not quote correctly, so your knowledge of scripture is imperfect.
3. Hmm, well, so God did say that, but he is referring to a specific form of putting God to the test (as at Massa). Doesn't that mean that other forms of testing God are "OK?" I mean, wouldn't God have SAID in "any way" if he meant in any way?
4. Boy Jesus, you sure missed the point of what God was saying. I bet you could not even find Massa on a map.
I wish I was joking or being droll but I am not.
Likewise, Jesus did not "correct" Satan's citation of scripture, as Jesus knows full well what Satan is citing and its context and pertinence.
'He will give his angels charge concerning thee; and upon their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone' (Matthew 4:6).
For to his angels he has given command about you, that they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the asp and the viper; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon (Psalms 90:11-13).
Jesus could have said:
1. Hey Satan, always cite what book, chapter and verse, because otherwise we don't know if "God really said that."
2. Satan, you miss the point. That foot on stone thing is just one example of how God will guard me in "all" "ways." So why are you picking out one of the examples in Psalms 90 to test me with? Why not have me step on a few snakes too, etc.
Isn't that ridiculous, if either had challenged the other in those ways? Yet, be honest. Aren't SOME of you reading this going to yourself, "Oh, hey, that would be a 'good point' if either Satan or Jesus challenged the 'validity of the citation.'"
How foolish and near sighted are the moderns of today, even those who have genuine faith in their hearts.
This is why I taught this particular lesson tonight, so that you meet and recognize your danger of being easily tempted head on. All I had to do was play upon the anal compulsive and "making the point" usage of God's scripture as a play ground for word smiths, numerologists and yes even the obsessive compulsive (or their opposite, the sloppy) faithful and you see how easily the refuting of Satan by Jesus would have been ruined if it was put in modern "standards" and the all too common vernacular.
Admit it. If Jesus was standing in front of you and "cited scripture" and one or two of the words varied from what you had in your hands printed in "your" version of the Bible, a seed of doubt about Jesus would be planted in your heart.
It is for that reason that Jesus came when he did in the times that he did, when people were verbal and filled with the spirit of context, not of word smithing and argumentative, defensive "superiority." That is why people said "it is written" because people were getting the accurate message of God across to each other, but not measuring accuracy by ridiculous word plays and number games. Jesus knew that Satan knew that Satan was citing just one example of how God would be "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust" (Psalms 90:2) so a "gotcha" moment would be pointless since the point was not to parrot words, but to try to apply scripture to a challenge to Jesus. Likewise Satan did not challenge Jesus that "the prohibition against testing only applies to Massa" because obviously Satan knows that God was forbidding all testing of him, and only mentioning "Massa" so that the people would keep that specific chastisement fresh in their memories.
People: you cannot evangelize nor bolster your own faith and the faith of others if you are using "gotcha" techniques in your day to day discourse and even your fundamental understanding of God's word in scripture. There is a profound difference between being accurate and anal (pardon my being so indelicate but the modern vernacular among the young has changed so much that I can't convey the message without using their common lingo). Likewise there is a profound difference between knowing God's entire word and his context and having preloaded favorite scripture debating points.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Another example.....(extra credit, LOL)
And Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people' (Acts 23:5).
Paul is referencing:
"You shall not revile God, nor curse a prince of your people" (Exodus 22:27).
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Cultural diplomacy, ordinary debate case study
Here is another important concept in cultural diplomacy and-in fact-an essential part of any genuine dialogue or debate, whether there is a cultural difference or simply a political or lifestyle difference.
I thought of presenting this topic today as a result of listening to a caller to a morning talk show. The caller was able to get through I guess around five sentences of his opinion, but in the way of most people, was still developing his position when he was interrupted by the kind of bristling talk show host. The caller had triggered a quick change from a rather mellow tone to this bristling reaction by the talk host because the caller stated that he felt the USA is in need of a revolution. Now, the caller never got a chance to state what exactly he means by “revolution” (one of the most overworked terms of the past forty years) because the talk show host assumed he meant violent revolution. So the talk show host gave what I’m sure he felt was a really responsible “reply,” focusing on God (this is a conservative show) and the necessity to avoid violent revolution. Well…. Here’s the problem with that response.
First of all, as I said, “revolution” is one of the most overworked words of the past forty years, and it means at least a hundred different things-a hundred different types of “revolution”-depending on who you are speaking to and about what subject! You need to give a person who uses that word at least a few sentences to sketch (even in rapid fire “talk show” formats) what type of revolution he or she means. Just because they reference the American Revolution and the Civil War does not mean that they are indicated violent government overthrow. But it was those references that caused to talk show to immediately assume that the caller was alluding to a military revolution, but there was absolutely no reason to believe that was what he meant. So the most important rule in any dialogue is not to stop listening when a “code word” or concept is used and, instead, at least ask for a few sentences from the other person to clarify what they mean.
It’s hard to get into someone’s head, so this is how I recommend you obtain the most accurate information about your conversationalist’s position. Ask him or her, “How exactly would you envision this working if ideally your suggestion would take place in the best of circumstances?” Imagine the wide variety of possible replies to the “revolution” scenario. The guy might respond, “Well, I think that states that disagree with the federal government on such and such an issue should break away.” Then you’d have to ask what he means by “break away,” since that might simply mean a state constitutional amendment regarding a specific topic, hardly a call to marching armies! If you respect the person and give them time to at least sketch out in a sentence or two what they mean and how they’d like to see it happen, you actually find out information and perspective that is far beyond what your knee jerk reaction and assumptions dictate, and thus, then, hijack your attention and the fittingness of your response. I believe that at least ninety percent of conversations, debates, public diplomacy and presentations of views are hijacked by inattention and erroneous assumptions once a “code word” is spoken and thus defensive and hostile mechanisms are triggered.
The second reason this is a problem is that suppose the worst is true, that your debating combatant does have a radical view, but you take off on a tangent without allowing him or her to express the full view, they can, legitimately, discount your response. Just as you stopped listening to him or her at a code word, once they realize you are only responding to the code word and not what they are actually saying, they shut you off in return since your response is not relevant to their belief. Thus there is no point to having had the conversation at all. Both liberals and conservatives need to listen to me and heed my advice on this regard. You don’t “mitigate” or “argue” against what you feel are “radical” views if you do not get into specifics and if you jump to conclusions and shut them off, you miss a “conversion” possibility and simply harden their views (whatever they may be since you didn’t actually stop to find out the specifics).
How would this work? Suppose this guy was advocating what you think is a horrible scenario, which is that he thinks that some group should run amok in the USA advocating armed revolution, and suppose you uncover this via respectful and prolonged questioning. Hmm, so what would you do then? If anything you should think that dialogue is even more important, since a lot is at stake if this guy is feeling that armed revolution is either desirable or sadly inevitable (notice that this is another nuance that you must explore: does he or she want what he or she describes, or do they think it is inevitable? There’s a world of difference in stance and thus in reasonable reply). Here’s how I would handle such a conversation. I would ask him or her how they would deal with a number of scenarios and let them talk and think it through. For example, I would ask, “Suppose in your ideal world you called for revolution but only one state agreed? Would you consider that a success, in that all who agree with you and your views could move to that state and live in the legality (whatever issues) that you called for revolution regarding?”
See, here I’ve painted a scenario. I’ve said, “OK, let’s assume that the revolution you advocate works, but not as much as you hoped for, because only one state agrees and achieves revolution in the area that you are concerned about. What would you do next? Would that be enough for you?” When you allow the person to describe specifics of what they want (with the help of intelligent coaching by you), you accomplish a lot of good things. 1) You actually understand what he or she is saying and what their position actually is, 2) You can target your concerns and objections with accuracy, thus productively prolonging the fruitfulness of the dialogue and 3) Both of you have to openly evaluate possible merits to his or her position, and possible problems with his or her position. You may find out that he or she is onto something valid, buried underneath their invalid methods of achieving it! Likewise, while you may not achieve results on the spot, the person will leave with some serious thinking to do, perhaps something like, “Hmm, I never thought of that. Suppose my revolution was successful, but only for one state. What would that mean? Would I actually move my family to that state? Maybe that’s not quite the solution I thought it was.”
Whenever people flip out and overreact over code words, it’s worse than if they never had the conversation at all. More damage is done by having repeated hardened calloused encounters between the usual “misunderstanding combatants.” Every time someone says, for example, “I believe the Palestinians should have a homeland” and the other person replies, “I do not,” both have damaged the entire dialogue and the progress of their own causes. When you distill an entire thorny social, moral, cultural, diplomatic and governmental woe to “Homeland? Yes or no,” you pour more verbal and mental concrete on fallacious “opposing” positions. I mean, think about it, one person may be envisioning one type of homeland structure while the other one is imagining something completely different. You never get the chance to find out, work with the legitimate positions, discover common ground, and unfold many nuances of options rather than a theoretical “pro” or “con.”
So long as the person you are dialoguing with has humane good will, you can and should listen to the fullness of his or her position, even if it is diametrically opposed to your own views. Thus, while I believe that those of good will on either side of the abortion position should dialogue, I would not have recommended that either of them try to dialogue with Pol Pot. Ninety nine plus percent of humanity is not despot maniacs, and the vast majority of them are just trying to get by in life as best as possible. If a person is not a despot maniac, than you should take care to actually question them and listen to them about their full beliefs; you might learn something and actually change your own mind.
To summarize: 1) Discipline your thinking and analysis to ignore code words and not derail your assessment of a person’s position just because he or she uses a code word, 2) Ask the person to describe specific implementations of the fulfillment of their views, 3) If they are inarticulate, be kind and help them to articulate what they are saying, since erudition and glibness are not indicators of value of idea, and lack of those qualities of presentation do not diminish the potential value of an idea, 4) Always recall that unless the person is a despot maniac, he or she is just trying to get through life as best as they can and thus they share something with you.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
I thought of presenting this topic today as a result of listening to a caller to a morning talk show. The caller was able to get through I guess around five sentences of his opinion, but in the way of most people, was still developing his position when he was interrupted by the kind of bristling talk show host. The caller had triggered a quick change from a rather mellow tone to this bristling reaction by the talk host because the caller stated that he felt the USA is in need of a revolution. Now, the caller never got a chance to state what exactly he means by “revolution” (one of the most overworked terms of the past forty years) because the talk show host assumed he meant violent revolution. So the talk show host gave what I’m sure he felt was a really responsible “reply,” focusing on God (this is a conservative show) and the necessity to avoid violent revolution. Well…. Here’s the problem with that response.
First of all, as I said, “revolution” is one of the most overworked words of the past forty years, and it means at least a hundred different things-a hundred different types of “revolution”-depending on who you are speaking to and about what subject! You need to give a person who uses that word at least a few sentences to sketch (even in rapid fire “talk show” formats) what type of revolution he or she means. Just because they reference the American Revolution and the Civil War does not mean that they are indicated violent government overthrow. But it was those references that caused to talk show to immediately assume that the caller was alluding to a military revolution, but there was absolutely no reason to believe that was what he meant. So the most important rule in any dialogue is not to stop listening when a “code word” or concept is used and, instead, at least ask for a few sentences from the other person to clarify what they mean.
It’s hard to get into someone’s head, so this is how I recommend you obtain the most accurate information about your conversationalist’s position. Ask him or her, “How exactly would you envision this working if ideally your suggestion would take place in the best of circumstances?” Imagine the wide variety of possible replies to the “revolution” scenario. The guy might respond, “Well, I think that states that disagree with the federal government on such and such an issue should break away.” Then you’d have to ask what he means by “break away,” since that might simply mean a state constitutional amendment regarding a specific topic, hardly a call to marching armies! If you respect the person and give them time to at least sketch out in a sentence or two what they mean and how they’d like to see it happen, you actually find out information and perspective that is far beyond what your knee jerk reaction and assumptions dictate, and thus, then, hijack your attention and the fittingness of your response. I believe that at least ninety percent of conversations, debates, public diplomacy and presentations of views are hijacked by inattention and erroneous assumptions once a “code word” is spoken and thus defensive and hostile mechanisms are triggered.
The second reason this is a problem is that suppose the worst is true, that your debating combatant does have a radical view, but you take off on a tangent without allowing him or her to express the full view, they can, legitimately, discount your response. Just as you stopped listening to him or her at a code word, once they realize you are only responding to the code word and not what they are actually saying, they shut you off in return since your response is not relevant to their belief. Thus there is no point to having had the conversation at all. Both liberals and conservatives need to listen to me and heed my advice on this regard. You don’t “mitigate” or “argue” against what you feel are “radical” views if you do not get into specifics and if you jump to conclusions and shut them off, you miss a “conversion” possibility and simply harden their views (whatever they may be since you didn’t actually stop to find out the specifics).
How would this work? Suppose this guy was advocating what you think is a horrible scenario, which is that he thinks that some group should run amok in the USA advocating armed revolution, and suppose you uncover this via respectful and prolonged questioning. Hmm, so what would you do then? If anything you should think that dialogue is even more important, since a lot is at stake if this guy is feeling that armed revolution is either desirable or sadly inevitable (notice that this is another nuance that you must explore: does he or she want what he or she describes, or do they think it is inevitable? There’s a world of difference in stance and thus in reasonable reply). Here’s how I would handle such a conversation. I would ask him or her how they would deal with a number of scenarios and let them talk and think it through. For example, I would ask, “Suppose in your ideal world you called for revolution but only one state agreed? Would you consider that a success, in that all who agree with you and your views could move to that state and live in the legality (whatever issues) that you called for revolution regarding?”
See, here I’ve painted a scenario. I’ve said, “OK, let’s assume that the revolution you advocate works, but not as much as you hoped for, because only one state agrees and achieves revolution in the area that you are concerned about. What would you do next? Would that be enough for you?” When you allow the person to describe specifics of what they want (with the help of intelligent coaching by you), you accomplish a lot of good things. 1) You actually understand what he or she is saying and what their position actually is, 2) You can target your concerns and objections with accuracy, thus productively prolonging the fruitfulness of the dialogue and 3) Both of you have to openly evaluate possible merits to his or her position, and possible problems with his or her position. You may find out that he or she is onto something valid, buried underneath their invalid methods of achieving it! Likewise, while you may not achieve results on the spot, the person will leave with some serious thinking to do, perhaps something like, “Hmm, I never thought of that. Suppose my revolution was successful, but only for one state. What would that mean? Would I actually move my family to that state? Maybe that’s not quite the solution I thought it was.”
Whenever people flip out and overreact over code words, it’s worse than if they never had the conversation at all. More damage is done by having repeated hardened calloused encounters between the usual “misunderstanding combatants.” Every time someone says, for example, “I believe the Palestinians should have a homeland” and the other person replies, “I do not,” both have damaged the entire dialogue and the progress of their own causes. When you distill an entire thorny social, moral, cultural, diplomatic and governmental woe to “Homeland? Yes or no,” you pour more verbal and mental concrete on fallacious “opposing” positions. I mean, think about it, one person may be envisioning one type of homeland structure while the other one is imagining something completely different. You never get the chance to find out, work with the legitimate positions, discover common ground, and unfold many nuances of options rather than a theoretical “pro” or “con.”
So long as the person you are dialoguing with has humane good will, you can and should listen to the fullness of his or her position, even if it is diametrically opposed to your own views. Thus, while I believe that those of good will on either side of the abortion position should dialogue, I would not have recommended that either of them try to dialogue with Pol Pot. Ninety nine plus percent of humanity is not despot maniacs, and the vast majority of them are just trying to get by in life as best as possible. If a person is not a despot maniac, than you should take care to actually question them and listen to them about their full beliefs; you might learn something and actually change your own mind.
To summarize: 1) Discipline your thinking and analysis to ignore code words and not derail your assessment of a person’s position just because he or she uses a code word, 2) Ask the person to describe specific implementations of the fulfillment of their views, 3) If they are inarticulate, be kind and help them to articulate what they are saying, since erudition and glibness are not indicators of value of idea, and lack of those qualities of presentation do not diminish the potential value of an idea, 4) Always recall that unless the person is a despot maniac, he or she is just trying to get through life as best as they can and thus they share something with you.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
