I’d like to mention a problem I’ve observed in the endless debates we have online on a whole host of subjects. I am sure I am as guilty as anyone, so don’t think that I am throwing out some kind of blanket condemnation of everyone who is not me.
So here is what I am seeing… Someone makes an argument based on history, but what he says isn’t exactly what happened. It is how he remembered (perhaps) or how he wants to remember it or how someone taught it to him, or whatever, but it isn’t quite right. Nevertheless, he bases a strong argument for a particular view on a weak foundation. Someone with knowledge (or the time to look it up) can easily dismiss what he says. Yet even when corrected, some stubbornly persist in their view of reality… The mind boggles.
What is worse is when we do this with arguments based on the Bible. Someone makes a statement based on a half-remembered verse and fulminates away without so much as looking the verse up so as to speak authoritatively and certainly doesn’t quote the verse. But because he remembers it a certain way, he is making a ‘biblical’ argument.
As I said, I think I am guilty of this as well, I am sure. If our online discussions are important (perhaps they are in some ways), don’t they deserve accuracy? Or should our arguments be just what I feel about something because of the way I seem to remember something (or want to remember something)? Perhaps if we really did take time to be scripturally and historically accurate in what we say, we would say it better and actually persuade someone once in a while. And perhaps we would post less but with more quality.
Now, let’s see if I can find a verse for this…
Comments