Forum
Fool's Talk
Quote from Kameron on September 7, 2020, 8:31 pmI've read through the second chapter. I like it so far. I think Os makes a great point about living apologetics instead of just writing about it; it's not about winning arguments or converts, but making a better life. I have long argued that living a Christian life is always more powerful testimony than carefully crafted words and arguments.
That being said, when engaging someone that doesn't agree with me, whether atheist or theistic, I do prefer a particular method of argumentation that is disarming and not too blunt. I prefer reductio ad absurdum through the socratic method. Basically asking the person questions about their beliefs, and continuing that questioning until their logic leads them to an absurd conclusion. This has been helpful because its not confrontational, I genuinely am interested in their logic and conclusions, and often *they* are the ones that realize their on fallacy, without humiliating them.
The jarring methodology of surprising people as Os mentioned regarding the two examples in the books of Kings is definitely a good rhetorical tool. It is the same technique used with comedians. They are memorable and countercultural, which Jesus certainly used quite a bit. But without the Christian living backing it up, it will only remain memorable and countercultural and not accepted, in my opinion.
I've read through the second chapter. I like it so far. I think Os makes a great point about living apologetics instead of just writing about it; it's not about winning arguments or converts, but making a better life. I have long argued that living a Christian life is always more powerful testimony than carefully crafted words and arguments.
That being said, when engaging someone that doesn't agree with me, whether atheist or theistic, I do prefer a particular method of argumentation that is disarming and not too blunt. I prefer reductio ad absurdum through the socratic method. Basically asking the person questions about their beliefs, and continuing that questioning until their logic leads them to an absurd conclusion. This has been helpful because its not confrontational, I genuinely am interested in their logic and conclusions, and often *they* are the ones that realize their on fallacy, without humiliating them.
The jarring methodology of surprising people as Os mentioned regarding the two examples in the books of Kings is definitely a good rhetorical tool. It is the same technique used with comedians. They are memorable and countercultural, which Jesus certainly used quite a bit. But without the Christian living backing it up, it will only remain memorable and countercultural and not accepted, in my opinion.