How to disagree well

[Bootstrap]

I think this is a useful article:

How to disagree well: 7 of the best and worst ways to argue

At the very least, it may help some of you understand how I am used to approaching disagreement. And I think it rhymes with some of the things the Bible says about righteous speech and sins of speech.

[lesterb]

This chart assumes that you are in the right and setting the other side straight. Isn't there a place for simply stating your opinion, stating why you feel this way, and then walking away? I try to only stay in a discussion until it gets to the "contradicting stage". I suppose there is room for, "this is my opinion or belief, and this why I feel this way, and here are some reasons that I disagree with your proposition" approach.

Discussion should be an "iron sharpens iron" proposition. I can learn, you can learn, and we can all learn together. To shift the focus from the discussion to the person behind the discussion is almost always counterproductive. I've done it, I know, but this is what I try to go by.

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

[Bootstrap]

This chart assumes that you are in the right and setting the other side straight. Isn't there a place for simply stating your opinion, stating why you feel this way, and then walking away? I try to only stay in a discussion until it gets to the "contradicting stage". I suppose there is room for, "this is my opinion or belief, and this why I feel this way, and here are some reasons that I disagree with your proposition" approach.

That's a really good point. Proving the other person wrong isn't helpful in a discussion, and we generally profit more from discussion than debate.

But I still think that the levels of the pyramid are useful - it's the "and this why I feel this way, and here are some reasons that I disagree with your proposition" you mention that matters.

Discussion should be an "iron sharpens iron" proposition. I can learn, you can learn, and we can all learn together. To shift the focus from the discussion to the person behind the discussion is almost always counterproductive. I've done it, I know, but this is what I try to go by.

Absolutely.

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

Hmmm. But if Lester believes it, doesn't that prove them wrong?

I'd like to say that only ignorant people argue that way. But sadly, that's not true. I do think that arguing that way generally leads to more ignorance and more strife.

[lesterb]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

Hmmm. But if Lester believes it, doesn't that prove them wrong?

I'd like to say that only ignorant people argue that way. But sadly, that's not true. I do think that arguing that way generally leads to more ignorance and more strife.

This person was intelligent all right. He even told me that he's having fun watching me fall all over myself trying to answer his questions. Unfortunately the discussion was live and he gave me no chance to think. I find writing easier because I have time to think through what the other person said and think through how to answer him.

I hate controversy, and that enters in as well. But the Bible says that "a soft answer turns away wrath" and I think that applies to this discussion. Things go south quickly when we feel threatened, or when our pride is pricked. That happened to me the first time I joined a discussion on MennoDiscuss. I entered a discussion in which I thought I had a fair bit of background and got promptly kiboshed by the resident rescuer of fair maidens and scourge to conservative Mennonites.

I would have saved myself a lot of grief had I turned tail and ran for the bushes and stayed there. I learned a lot of lessons the hard way very quickly in those days.

The point is this: A discussion can be very helpful to all the parties involved, even if they end up disagreeing. Unfortunately if it turns into an argument in which no one hears what the other side is trying to say, then the effort is wasted and no one gains.

What I see happening a bit on MennoNet right now is that sides are being drawn. You can't agree with certain people without being looked at crosswise. I don't like being told that this person is wrong, so you shouldn't agree with them. I much prefer to make those judgment calls on my own and deal with them my own way. Cliques always divide.

[Sudsy]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but it seems to me this gets into what Jesus was including in the idea of turning the other cheek. And after taking the verbal or written 'slap', we are to turn around and do good to those who slapped us. We are to bless them who curse us so to speak. Hard on the ego but amazing how it can puts 'coals of fire' on the abuser's head. Wish I crucified the flesh and did this more.

Imo, turning the other cheek has been too locked in as a physical smack across the face when I think it gets into the areas of non-resistance and love even without the physical smack. At times, imo, there is not much turning the other cheek on these forums when our ego takes a hit. This forum, one might think, would be the model for not returning smack for smack.

[Bootstrap]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but it seems to me this gets into what Jesus was including in the idea of turning the other cheek. And after taking the verbal or written 'slap', we are to turn around and do good to those who slapped us. We are to bless them who curse us so to speak. Hard on the ego but amazing how it can puts 'coals of fire' on the abuser's head. Wish I crucified the flesh and did this more.

Yet Jesus did not respond that way to the religiously self-righteous who praise their own spirituality and attack the spirituality and character of others. He was quite forceful against the Pharisees when they did that to prostitutes, tax collectors, his disciples, or even Jesus himself.

I don't think we should make room for vague accusations and blatant lies against other people. I don't think we should make room for faction building. I don't think turning the other cheek is the appropriate response to these things. That's not how Paul treated them. If you make room for this, it tends to take over.

[Wade]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

Where we live is full of people from Doukhobour heritage. They even state on their website that people who don't believe as they do are ignorant.
So pacifism gets a real bad name. We non-resitant people get lumped in and people believe around here that pacifism and non-resistance are synonymous with pride.

If I try to explain it - I just end up sounding more prideful... Rather I just talk about the love of Christ and His willingly dying on the cross.

[lesterb]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but it seems to me this gets into what Jesus was including in the idea of turning the other cheek. And after taking the verbal or written 'slap', we are to turn around and do good to those who slapped us. We are to bless them who curse us so to speak. Hard on the ego but amazing how it can puts 'coals of fire' on the abuser's head. Wish I crucified the flesh and did this more.

Yet Jesus did not respond that way to the religiously self-righteous who praise their own spirituality and attack the spirituality and character of others. He was quite forceful against the Pharisees when they did that to prostitutes, tax collectors, his disciples, or even Jesus himself.

I don't think we should make room for vague accusations and blatant lies against other people. I don't think we should make room for faction building. I don't think turning the other cheek is the appropriate response to these things. That's not how Paul treated them. If you make room for this, it tends to take over.

I see two caveats in this. First, if the accusations, etc. are against other, innocent, people, I won't necessarily stay quiet. I'm speaking of people accusing me. And second, someone in authority, like a church leader, may need to speak up about a situation. Again, it is best if it is concerning someone else, not himself.

Jesus had more authority than I will ever have. I don't think it would be right for me to cleanse a temple with a whip. Nor would I want to talk to people that way Jesus did to the Pharisees.

But maybe that's just me. <shrug>

[steve-in-kville]

I haven't heard the term "asshat" in quite a while.

This is all.

[Sudsy]

How would you handle a discussion with someone who tells you that only ignorant people believe what you believe? I've had that happen to me.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but it seems to me this gets into what Jesus was including in the idea of turning the other cheek. And after taking the verbal or written 'slap', we are to turn around and do good to those who slapped us. We are to bless them who curse us so to speak. Hard on the ego but amazing how it can puts 'coals of fire' on the abuser's head. Wish I crucified the flesh and did this more.

Yet Jesus did not respond that way to the religiously self-righteous who praise their own spirituality and attack the spirituality and character of others. He was quite forceful against the Pharisees when they did that to prostitutes, tax collectors, his disciples, or even Jesus himself.

I don't think we should make room for vague accusations and blatant lies against other people. I don't think we should make room for faction building. I don't think turning the other cheek is the appropriate response to these things. That's not how Paul treated them. If you make room for this, it tends to take over.

I was taking Lester's statement as slams against myself and how I should respond.

I view Jesus authority to rebuke others a bit different than myself rebuking another as I am not without sin as He is. In any correcting of others, I still have beams in my own eyes. The other dimension here I think is very important is that rebukes of other believers, after we qualify to rebuke, must be Spirit lead and not ego driven. Even pastors can have control issues that are not Spirit lead but rather in how they want others to act. In rebukes I think the use of scriptures in context along with prayer is a good way to allow the Holy Spirit to convict and correct others.

Slam against others and defending them we can always remind the slammed how best to deal with being slammed. Prayer is a big tool here as when someone treats us as an enemy we pray for them to be blessed and we also are to treat them back with kindness.

I know I don't always live up to these ways and it seems we disagree on how we should handle things like being called 'ignorant'. I just know when I'm called some put down expression, my ego, the old nature, wants to come alive again. I must recon him as dead.