Tags
blogging, debates, discussions, faith, humor, internet culture, opinion
I really appreciate this little meme, so I already regret playing devil’s advocate here. What a wonderful world we would live in if we could all just grasp this one little point, “it’s not all about you.”
The personal is NOT political. You don’t have to “stay up all night because someone is wrong on the internet.” We control the horizontal and the vertical, we get to choose our offense, how much, how often, over what, and over whom.
So I kind of hate to argue in favor of “taking offense,” especially in a world so heavily dominated by it. Like all extremes however, in their extreme form they just aren’t so good. I love “unity, harmony, like-mindedness” for example, but us all marching in lockstep under the “peace” of fascism, not so much. Even a beautiful concept like “peace” can be made all dark and ugly.
Imagine however, if we took offense at nothing. Not world hunger, not dying children, not the suffering of our fellow-man. Offense actually serves a vital and necessary purpose in the world. Jesus was offended in the temple, when offense was called for.
The absence of love is actually not hatred at all, it is indifference.
Citizen Tom wrote a good post called, “Why Debate?” It’s an issue that’s been on my mind, too. I have to stay in this place of constant heart check, of never-ending self-reflection, what issues are you engaging in and why, what’s the motivation?
There’s this little comic, an author is reading a bit of fan mail, a terrible review and thinking, but you read it, didn’t you? You actually read my book.!!…
It’s a bit funny, but even criticism, discussion, debate, can be forms of love. I kind of poke fun at this whole concept in my “Rave Reviews” at the top of this blog. For a long time I got nothing but complaints and criticism in the blogging world and then I started noticing how much time people had invested in coming up with some really creative ways to insult me. Took a bit of humility but I finally got to the point of saying, well, people may hate you IB, but at least they aren’t completely indifferent to you….
So why do we debate? Lots of reasons. To learn things about ourselves and other people, to clarify our own beliefs or to transform them, to introduce ourselves to new ideas, to help others open their eyes to different ways of perceiving things,and to build some unity and common purpose in the world. Thirty of us can raise a barn in a day, far better and more efficiently then one standing alone can.
Or as Proverbs says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”
“Debate” is kind of becoming a lost art in the modern world. We seem to fear the market place of ideas and we tend to want to control the narrative. Rather than engaging in discussion or even in protest, we just try to annihilate and destroy the opposition.
I had a discussion about the nature of protests a few years back that was kind of eye-opening. In the days of Civil Rights and the Vietnam war, at least our protests had an objective, a goal, a desire to win over hearts and minds. Today we are more like “Occupy Everything” and don’t stop until “They” are destroyed. Who is “They?” Heck if I know. “Occupy Everything” took over a shopping square here once, people camped out in protest, so the City Council just started sending them pizzas. The Great Pizza Protest.
So as a culture we’ve kind of mastered the whole idea of taking offense and launching a protest or a riot, but the whole concept of actually communicating, engaging with one another, seems to have fallen out of favor, all the way up through the halls of congress.
We need to start not avoiding taking personal offense, but making peace with it.
I often say the bible is a love letter between God and His people, and it is, but it is also a persuasive argument, the presentation of a Great Debate, one written to win over our hearts and minds. Our hearts mostly. A bit funny, but in ancient days the brain was thought to be kind of a useless organ, our very being actually stemming from our heart and not our brains.
So why do we engage with people and attempt to civilly debate? Mostly to reflect the image of the One who spoke us into existence, who invites us to engage with Him, who woos, cajoles, and entices us with His own arguments.
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com
See, there's this thing called biology... 
As a Christian, we seek to love what God loves and hate what God hates. How much should I care about this? Well, how much does God care about it?
I probably ignore people to a fault, so internet idiots don’t bother me that much. If they’re delusional it’s their problem – unless they ask for help. Then I can get involved.
LikeLiked by 4 people
What a great way to prioritize. – Should this be important to me? Well, is it important to God?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen! The only sticky part is individual calling. I could feel a great compassion for orphans and someone else could have compassion for the elderly. Who’s right? Compassion is Christ like, so we move in the realms where we have passion. We can’t impose our passion on everybody else – that’s the Spirit’s work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True – it’s easy to get involved in everything that’s “important to God” but not necessarily our calling. A person could really get burned out trying to do it all. (Don’t ask me how I know.
)
LikeLiked by 1 person
God grant us focus 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not sure that debate in general has much merit anymore.. or likely since the masses were taught to read.. and in the 20th century when technology gave us radio, TV, and now social media and the internet. Prior to all that debate was thought to be an intellectual exercise to test and evaluate one’s oratory skills and ability to present one side or another on a specific issue… or in the case of the early Greeks and Romans.. to debate humanity, life, and nature. In early contemporary terms the theory was to debate all sides of an issue in order for some “audience” being presented with all the facts in order to make their own learned opinions. In political terms… well… all that ever did was “entertain” the crowds with a candidate’s oratory and ability to be spontaneous in presenting points and counterpoints to imply some intellectualism. As I was going through the school years we had the occasional debate formats in a class or two.. and of course there was the traditional debate club, into the college years. Especially debate “teams” arguing an issue.. the class rank-in-file then voted on who was better, as if it were like winning the Oscars. In the end, and in most cases I took part in.. it was less about winning an argument (“win” an argument??) and far more about the performance.
But the true abomination has been political TV debates. Sometimes a network will try and do the nice format with proper and orderly response times and rebuttal times between two opposing candidates. Well, in those debates it’s far less about debating a single issue and all about who presents themselves better; “Vote for me because I have better ideas and I can express them better.”
The total absurdity is when some network has a field of 6 or 8 candidates at once. Response timing is tossed right out the window, and more often than not it becomes an issue where everyone wants to say something at the same time so as not to look like the one person on the stage being a total schmuck. In my opinion.. debate does nothing.. not even in religious contexts. To debate some religious pretext means we are taking issue with another person’s beliefs. Why? It’s personal. If there’s a debate on a specific religion’s internal preferences between followers.. that’s a housekeeping issue and that’s fine if it has value.
Honestly.. I find the best form of a candidate meeting the public on TV or in person is the town hall format. One-on-one question answering by (presumably) a public who truly has the questions they want answered. While it might take away from the pure entertainment value of Trump trying to keep up with ANYONE in a debate format, given he has little comprehension what to say and certainly no attention to detail, or decorum… he would do himself better sticking to a town hall format. But as a culture who is generally educated enough.. debate is just not necessary anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@IB
Before I “debate” Doug, thanks. Appreciate the link and your thoughts.
@Doug
I have gotten to the point where I just grow wide-eyed with amazement when you drag Trump into everything. “He is doing it again? Why?” Please go back and read the start of IB’s post. Our president is an important person, but that is it. Everything is not about him. Get the man out of your head.
Why don’t we understand how to debate anymore? You are right to go back to the Greeks and the Romans. We don’t have a classical education. We don’t study what the best of us have done and learn from their examples. The lost art of debate illustrates the problem. We have substituted entertainment, soundbites, and gotchas for a true appreciation of learning.
Classical education? Learning from thousand of years ago? Yep! To understand what we have lost, we can easily go back several thousand years. Plato’s dialogues illustrated how to debate. Even though the works appear to be fictional, they illustrated how even pagans could treat each other and each others ideas with proper respect. The Lincoln-Douglas Debate of 1858 provid a fascinating illustration. When we compare what those two men did — what was EXPECTED of them — we should be weeping. What have we lost? Those guys actually had an orderly debate over an extremely controversial subject and without the sickening intrusion of a biased moderator pretending to be objective.
Ideas were once respected even by the most bloodthirsty and ambitious. Alexander the Great was a student of Aristotle. How did this proud man react when he encountered the philosopher who defined cynicism?
What is the point of a debate? We share what we know. Do some of us know things that are not in fact true? Yes? In fact, all of us have some bad ideas, and debate allows us to share them too. When we share what seems to another a bad idea, the fool will ridicule us. The wise man, however, will ask questions. He will help us test our beliefs, and iron will sharpen iron.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Then perhaps we need to define debate.. separating it from common discourse or simple exchange of ideas. because to me.. debate is a formal process by which those debating before an audience are measured for their degree of explaining and rebutting.. and the audience maybe forming their own opinion from it. Today’s audiences are better informed without the need for Lincoln-Douglas style debates. In fact, current “debates” do not inform on the issues being debated but rather are auditions for the candidates to make an impression.
In blog world.. we use “debate” as more or less a generic term for citing opinion.. but it’s really not a debate since most reading it already have formed opinion from other sources.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Doug
Consider again how you started.
Do we debate ideas or just demonstrate our skill in making our opponents look foolish? What is the point of that?
Although your definition of debate as practiced today may be correct, is this definition of debate what we should desire?
When Lincoln and Douglas debated, they offered two very different views of slavery. Their debates were not sound bites. Each man had ample time to explain himself, and their words were written down and printed in newspapers across the country.
Both men were skilled orators. Both understood how to prepare and present their arguments. What their audience wanted to know is what each man believed and why. Unfortunately, neither man knew how to resolve the conflict between the North and the South over slavery. Yet they debated as gentlemen should.
When Civil War began, don’t you think the peoples in both the North and the South understood the root of the conflict? Is it not likely we now lack a proper understanding of how to debate ideas? And if we no longer understand the purpose of debate, how can we say we are more informed than people who understood how to debate ideas?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, you illustrate my point, Tom. What you just said is such a broad explanation. Of course I do believe, for the purposes of our comparison here, that the average citizen sitting in front of the Lincoln-Douglas debates was as informed as they could possibly be for those times… those times being a large percentage of the population being illiterate by our contemporary standards, and the medium by which they learned anything was from print and word of mouth.. which I’m sure you will agree is not all that trustworthy.
LikeLike
@Doug
We don’t need to stage useful debates because we are so well informed? That’s a strange argument. Does it not seem more likely that we just don’t know how to wrest control from our elites? The elites like the debates as they are.
How do you know literacy was low? In the 1850’s books were expensive, but people shared them. I think you will be surprised by how many could read. Even as far back as the American Revolution, literacy was high. Ignorant people could not have established a constitutional republic composed largely of free men.
The people who could not read were slaves, and they were not allowed to read. They also didn’t vote. Not good, but that is the way it was. In the North there were few blacks and no slaves. Some blacks voted (where state law allowed it).
Aside: There has never been much economic incentive for slavery in the North. Slavery only works well when low skill workers are needed all year long. Sugar cane and cotton required such workers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ugh. Tom, do you just live to be contrary? Urban folks of the 19th century tended to be more educated than rural but there was no mass media. I need to explain that? Heck, that existed till WW2. And what does slavery have to do with the concept of debating?
LikeLike
@Doug
Why do we need the mass media? Explain that.
LikeLike
I dunno that we do. It’s a personal choice. Just like you’ve made your own choice regarding it… and many times your observations reflect that.
LikeLike
@Doug
That was clear as mud.
Think about the information that was available in 1860. Think about what is available today. With respect to exercising our responsibilities as informed citizens, what do we have that the folks in 1860 did not have that we have actually put to good use?
LikeLike
“…put to good use” is your whole point in asking, Tom. That is relative and subjective opinion presuming contemporary media is evil, which is your entitled opinion… not mine.
LikeLike
@Doug
So why can’t you explain what value the mass media has added to the operation of our political system since the Civil War? It accidentally got Trump elected?
LikeLike
Tom, unless you’re trying to bait me here, you should already know the answer to that.. good or bad… the media matters because of the First Amendment. Whether you wanna agree to it, that’s on you.
LikeLike
@Doug
Did not say anything about freedom of the press. They had that in 1860 too.
Who is baiting whom? Look at where you started. You criticized the modern debate format. You backed off and said audiences are better informed today when I joined you in the criticism.
Even with all our technology and all the money we throw at news gathering, about only improvement I see is that we can read multiple newspapers online instead of just buying one printed newspaper.
You say audiences are better informed today? Is it too much to ask you to support that assertion?
LikeLike
Well, perhaps the better question.. how is the media not informing? To which you will present that the media does not inform when it’s biased with other opinions.. and let’s toss in that mix, other agendas.. since having an agenda is considered sinister and conspiratorial these days.
But oddly you are correct. One has to have a level of contemporary sophistication in order to evaluate what the media tosses out there.. and not just accept it. Critical thinking skills.. which are not taught in schools. So for now exercising that concept we have to rely on nature vs. nurture components… and some folks vary wildly in being affects by those two elements, with just as wild results in formulating opinion. But that’s the diversity of our species. This is why we have the old adage.. either lead, follow, or get outta the way.
LikeLike
@Doug
Bias in the news media is nothing new. That is not my complaint. Anyone with a bit of honesty will admit they have some sort of bias. We grew up with a news media that was biased as all get-out. Pretending objectivity, they just hid it better.
My real issue is education. When the government instead parents take responsibility for educating children, too many of our children grow up accepting whatever nonsense the media puts out there.
Look at you! You are pointing at the problem too, but you ignoring the extent our elites have baked ignorance into the system they manage.
LikeLike
A lot of adults believe whatever nonsense is put out there too. But having said that, adults were once kids. You’re on this thing that parents know more how to teach their kids than the government. Well, gotta tell ya.. from my first hand awareness most parents are not capable nor desirous of teaching their kids scholastic agendas. Teaching religion is one thing… government should never do that. Now, I’ll agree with the universal thought that education in general lags real world by about ten years, but that’s a whole different idea.
Now.. I will also submit.. that I have not met a single student of home schooling who truly loved it because of the complete lack of social interaction.. and by time they completed what amounts to elementary school study their thirst was immense for the public high school experience. So, do we as concerned parents give a darn what our children may or may not want that we deem necessary for them? As a parent of three I was far more concerned about my kids’ abilities to decide things for themselves… make those proverbial “smart choices” (and not all sexually related) and hence to promote learning experiences that supported that end. I was far more concerned for their social development, knowing full well the academics they would do just fine. But even with all that “alleged” parental monitoring… there is a lot to do with simple luck of the gene pool.. and nothing got screwed up in the nature vs. nurture equation to be a detriment.
LikeLike
@Doug
1. Education cannot avoid religious thought. If we want children to behave a certain way, we have to give them a reason. As it is we have innumerable “isms” taught in school: multiculturalism, environmentalism, socialism, careerism, secularism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, scientism, and so forth.
2. Parents not bureaucrats, love children. How parents educate THEIR children is up to them. Homeschooling is just one option. Note that the same people who are parents are voters. Voters include 18 year olds, and some politicians want to lower the voting age. Voters pick the people who run the public schools, and I will agree most of us — you too — are not competent to run someone else’s life, but someone has to run a child’s life, and putting bureaucrats in charge doesn’t work. That’s equivalent to putting everyone in charge which means no one is responsible. If you can figure out who is responsible for a public school, let me know.
3. When we educate children, the object is to pass onto them we have learned. Culture is the all-encompassing word. Culture includes religious beliefs and the ways people interact. For example, is slavery right or wrong? Christians eventually rejected slavery because Christians believe all men, including the fairer sex, are made in the image of God. Because our public schools cannot pass on on Christian heritage, our society is veering back towards Paganism.
LikeLike
I’m of the opinion that one doesn’t need to be a Christian to abhor slavery, Tom. I realize you have this crusade against public education.. but it sure sounds like you want to turn America into a Christian caliphate. Maybe you should run for public office?
LikeLike
@Doug
How is allowing parents to be responsible for the education of their own children going to turn America into a Christian caliphate?
Does one have to be a Christian to abhor slavery? The historical record is what it is. Show me the number of nonChristians who opposed slavery in significant numbers.
LikeLike
“There has never been much economic incentive for slavery in the North.”
Speaking of debates, I once heard a really good one, guy argued that President Lincoln was often given credit for ending slavery, when in fact that honor actually belonged to Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin. Not saying he was right, but he did really open my eyes to the significance and importance of economics. A good friend of mine used to say, “it’s always about the price of bananas.” Bit of a jaded view perhaps, but there’s some real wisdom there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I recall having the “Eli Whitney” perspective mentioned in elementary school.. and your thoughts are correct. Technology of the day “interfered” with the traditional norms of the South as much as changing politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@IB
Well, I don’t know what Eli Whitney’s attitude towards slavery was, but the cotton gin made removing the seeds from cotton less labor intensive. That made cotton more competitive and resulted in increased production on plantations. That made slaves more valuable. Kind of funny how economics can work out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perish the thought of bringing up President Trump, but I simply must respond to this, “While it might take away from the pure entertainment value of Trump trying to keep up with ANYONE in a debate format..”
There is a much greater point here that extends way beyond Trump and it really needs to be said. The problem with that attitude being, he did win the debates. Then he went on to win the presidency. You can mock and ridicule Trump if you like, but he won, hands down, and is now seated in office.
Hillary made a mistake that is quite common in the world today, she disrespected her opponent, and rather then debating and engaging with him, she attempted to simply discredit him. She believed he wasn’t worth her time and it showed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No.. he never “won” any debates.. in fact, I’d submit no one “won” any debates. It’s a show. For one thing.. no way to judge or keep score; it’s not a ball game. Why is it so important for Conservatives to continually affirm Trump won? Or, more to the point, remind the world Hillary lost? He certainly did not win the election from the debates.
LikeLike
“Why is it important for conservatives to continually affirm Trump won?”
In part because he did. In part because it is objectively true? So when something is objectively true there is often something to be learned from it. One thing to be learned here is that the method of simply discrediting your opponent as crazy or unworthy of being taken seriously is that you are going to lose.
Much like I try to tell church folks you can ignore the culture if you like, but it’s not going to go away and if you don’t make your voices heard, you will lose the debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…if winning the debate is all that important in the end… true enough.
LikeLike
A continuation of some good convos as u know.
I do think that we as believers underestimate the importance of debate- take for instance debate from God’s point of view with Job and friends. God cannot lose and His arguments are far better than ours.
Some may think that ‘debating’ the gospel is lessening it, as there are flaws in the declaration. There are none, so simply put, the debate is simple engagement, answering every objection, and proving that God’s word always wins the day. The market place of ideas as u say-
So if believers don’t like to debate, then go hide under a rock, because every time we open our mouths, some one will challenge us. Like David, all we need is one smooth stone, and of course that arrow of Truth.
In this the debate has long been won.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Amen, Colorstorm. One of the beautiful things about the Book of Job, it really is a discussion, a debate between God and Job. God makes one of my favorite points in that book, “Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?”
It just cracks me up, because how like us to not realize we may be in just a wee bit over our heads. God is kind of saying, just set aside your offense and personal suffering for a moment, and consider the possibility that I know what I’m doing. I can hold the stars in the sky and make the water hard as stone. Just saying. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, there’s a meme that never goes out of style:
Let’s consider the possibility God knows what He is doing. Last time I checked, He surely didn’t ask for help when He packed snow in His storehouses. 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks! 🙂
LikeLike
You’re very welcome my friend 🤙😎
LikeLike
I enter into debate because “I want to crush enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentation of the women”
Lol 😁 sorry IB22, couldn’t resist quoting Arnie from Conan the Barbarian there
I used to love debates, not so much now, the older I get the more I realize you can’t change people’s points of view so I’m kind of getting apathetic now
Even with my own blog here now, I’m starting to think, is it really worth it lol,… I think the people out there will naturally gravitate towards a particular position you hold, but you won’t be able to persuade someone to go from arminiasm to calvinism
I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, your views on this?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good quote, CS. 🙂 I know you weren’t soliciting my opinion, but I pretty much agree with your thoughts here.
LikeLike
I was going to follow your blog for a while Necron.. but don’t see a follow link anywhere.
LikeLike
Oopss. sorry.. I called you someone else, Necron.
LikeLike
Huh? I am necron lol….or to be more precise, I’m necron48
Is there no “follow” button on my blog?
I’m not even sure what setting it would be to change that, maybe someone else knows and can help?
LikeLike
Ha! Love that Conan the Barbarian reference.
I think something changes when we interact with one another, it is simply inevitable. So we really can change hearts and minds, we do impact one another. But as to slaying people’s wrong headedness? Nah, that’s just innate to people, we can’t fix that. 🙂
LikeLike
Ok…Necron48 wins with his Conan quote…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is, being personally offended give you status – “victim” status. And for some reason, these days being a victim somehow gives a person credibility and/or clout in some circles. On the other hand, being “offended” by starvation, human trafficking, and other injustices takes us out of ourselves and the “everything’s-about-me” mentality. We can be part of something greater than ourselves, which is very liberating.
LikeLiked by 1 person