Arguing over words

[FollowingHim]

Whenever any of us post anything in detail, we'll tend to disagree with each other over something. Because we're all thinking for ourselves. We need to carefully discern whether we disagree in a substantial manner that is worth debating, or actually are close enough to just accept that we're both in approximate agreement.

For example, here's an issue that we're discussing on other threads. I don't want to discuss the issue here, it's been thrashed to death elsewhere, I'm just using it to illustrate a principle.

Topic: Sex between a married man and a single non-virgin, without marriage.

Bob: All sex outside marriage is fornication, which is sin. This is sinful.

Bill: Sex = marriage. Sex with a single woman is not forbidden anywhere, but it makes you married. If you then abandon each other, this is divorce, which is sin.

Joe: Fornication is sex that is forbidden in the law. I can't see any law against sex with a single non-virgin. So it's not fornication, and it's not sin. But it is promiscuity, which is spoken against in many New Testament passages, so don't do it.

Fred: Sex with a single non-virgin woman is not explicitly forbidden, so I can do it as much as I like with no need to marry.

These are four perspectives that all look very different on the surface. These four statements could kick off a massive argument that could last for weeks, about what things are "sin" and what is "not sin", with everyone getting all upset that others are promoting sin, heaps of stress, someone leaving in a huff - and nobody actually changing their opinion at all. You all know the sort of conversations I am talking about.

But are they really all different? Or are some of them just using different words to say the same thing?

Let's now rewrite those four viewpoints without using the words "fornication", "sin", "divorce" or "promiscuity". Rather, let's describe each position in terms of pleasing or upsetting YHWH:

Bob: YHWH is not pleased with sex outside of marriage, so don't do it.

Bill: YHWH is not pleased with sex outside of marriage, so don't do it - but if you do, consider yourselves married.

Joe: Whatever the Torah says about this, YHWH would clearly not be pleased with it, so don't do it.

Fred: YHWH is perfectly ok with this, I can do it as much as I like.

Now, that changes things completely. Bob, Bill and Joe can probably all look at each other's statements and find that they all agree with each other. They'll probably all agree that Bill's statement is the most comprehensive and take that as a good summary of all their viewpoints. Because it turns out that even though they were labelling things with "sin" or "fornication" differently, they were actually all promoting and discouraging the same behaviours. The disagreement between them was actually mainly about the definition of words. Not about how we should actually behave.

And they'll find they all disagree with Fred.

It would be unprofitable for Bob, Bill and Joe to get into an argument. It may be interesting for them to calmly discuss exactly how the words "sin", "fornication" etc should be defined. But silly to argue. Because they're just arguing about words. And this is unprofitable.

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

On the other hand, it could be very profitable for the three of them to try and calmly (so he actually listens) persuade Fred that maybe he needs to reconsider his overly liberal behaviour, because one day he'll have to stand before a Judge who might have a few things to say to him about it.

I find that this principle applies to many different debates. Next time you seem to have an argument that is about details, not actual behaviour, try rewording the positions of both parties without using the word "sin". You may find that this makes the argument completely obsolete.

 

[NetWatchR]

I like this. I think it's one of the many facets of the saying "the devil is in the details." Details can be hugely distracting from truly constructive dialog.

My personal viewpoint has been to try to enter into a dialog with the "intention" of learning and ready to admit that I might be.... wrong. Oh the horror. Often people want to discuss a topic in order to teach us poor ignant folk of our error. Head, meet Wall.

 

[julieb]

Well said Samuel! Completely agree.

 

[Jason]

Certain personalities are injured emotionally when they are shown to be wrong.

Certain personalities are simply in it for fun. Disagreements are a pastime for them.

Certain personalities take another's disagreement with them as a personal slight.

Certain personalities wade into arguments to try to mediate. There is no good confrontation in their estimate.


But with this topic especially, I think you will always see high emotions. Because of who we are as a group here, and because of our pasts and hopeful future.

The people here are interested in Biblical truth above all else. If they weren't, they would not be able to ignore the world around them that tells them how terrible they are for believing what they believe. They would bow to pressure. But they don't. God's truth is more important than man's truth to them.

They are also interested in Godly relationships. That is the underlying framework of all our discussions - how husbands, wives, children, and the unmarried should relate.

These two foundational thoughts are what drove most of us here in the first place, and this current topic encompasses both. But there is more. I think that the reason this topic has brought up such strong reactions is that we are all guilty. In one way or another, we all feel like we have failed and sinned against God in our relationships. Some people react to that by burying it, claiming it never happened, and espousing an interpretation that supports that. Some people embrace the forgiveness afforded to them, but it still hurts to hear their past sins pulled back up to the surface. Some people embrace the knowledge of their sin, and don't want the seriousness of that failure diminished with talk of easy forgiveness or apathy.

The ways we interpret this topic are going to be as varied as the lenses through which we have viewed it in the past. It is very personal, because of who we are. This is what brought us here: "What relationship is a marriage, and what relationship is a sin?"

Or sometimes: "I failed my Father before, in thoughts or in actions, I don't want to fail Him again".


The topic of divorce and remarriage came up in our Sunday school class recently. We go to a baptist church, and our family is completely open to them. Since they "tolerate" us, I try to remain quiet most of the time. I think being viewed as a know-it-all or overbearing would be excuse enough for them to get picky. So I didn't say anything as the young couples there, many who had experienced divorce already, and many who had been in relationships that the world didn't call marriage, discuss the 'proper' and 'legal' way to live the lives they had already lived, and not be guilty of sin.

This is useless. We are sinful. It happened. There are times where perfection is not an option. There are times when the Law is impossible. There are other people who have a vote and will not afford you with options. I have sinned, and I know it. So have the rest of us.

I don't expect that knowledge (which we all already know intellectually at the least) to change how we think about things. I just hope that no one is excusing a sin that has grieved their Father, and I equally hope that no one is holding on to a sin that their Father has long ago forgiven.

I'm going to "go, and sin no more". That's the plan anyway. I won't be totally successful, but it's a work in progress.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I greatly applaud the logical approach you took there Samuel. It certainly helps to de-escalate the conversation. And I also identified with Jason's example of the guy who likes to jump in to a debate just for the fun of it. I am definitely guilty of that.

Some issues are worth fighting over of course. I think is one of them. But I agree it's pointless to use a scorched earth policy that might burn your opponent into a withdrawal but won't actually lead to a cessation of hostilities.

 

[torahlovesalvation]

I have often looked at this with my feelings towards community. One of the things very much on my heart is, who will my children Marry. For some of you maybe this has not been much of a thought. Maybe you say it's in God's hands to bring their spouse to them.
I on the other hand cannot look at it this way. I am always thinking and considering where (and who) I might turn to when my children are of age and say." Have you considered the son or daughter this or that family". In that line of reason, I have also have to consider their father and how he has led their family. The very things that we debate on this forum are the things that will be embedded in the mind of my children's spouses. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot look for idealistic or identical reasoning as mine. Nor is being in the same ballpark settling or compromising.
No instead even tempered, healthy debate is iron sharpening iron. Thank you all who take the time to keep this Forum alive

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk