tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post8706427871945802659..comments2024-03-28T08:41:39.614-07:00Comments on Winging It: Agreeing to DisagreeStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-63471807926934996672013-10-29T12:41:44.311-07:002013-10-29T12:41:44.311-07:00Marshall Art,
First, I, obviously, am not a fan o...Marshall Art,<br /><br />First, I, obviously, am not a fan of "agree to disagree". But I'm also not radically opposed to it in all cases.<br /><br />To me, several factors are of paramount importance in this idea. For instance, "<i>It suggests that the opposing opinion is NOT so bad or wrong that it must or should be tolerated.</i>" I ask myself how important is the subject upon which we (whoever the two people are) are disagreeing? "You know, I think coffee is really nasty." "Oh, yeah? Well, I think it's great!" Okay, so, no I'm not going to fight over that one. I think the the opinion opposed to mine on the tastiness of coffee is indeed not so bad or wrong that I cannot tolerate it. The second fastor is how convinced I am of my position. Am I <i>sure</i> I'm right? If not completely, totally, 100%, then, no, I'm not willing to be intolerant of other ideas. (Or, as you indicated, "<i>my position might not be the more correct or valid position.</i>") I want to know just how deleterious (your word -- good word) the topic is. Is it really going to cause some harm if I'm wrong about when the Rapture occurs?<br /><br />But, bottom line, "Let's postpone this debate until another time, keeping note of where we differ" is <i>exactly</i> "agree to disagree". That is, "No, we don't agree" but "No, we're not going to come to blows (or some other separation) over this." "Agree to disagree" says, "No, you're still wrong; I'm just not willing to shoot you now" (or something like it).<br /><br />(Note: I'm using "tolerate" in the sense of the actual meaning of the word. I'm not saying, "I agree" as is often suggested these days. I'm saying, "I <i>dis</i>agree, but will allow you to continue with your error.")Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-14741355811993684202013-10-29T05:33:35.423-07:002013-10-29T05:33:35.423-07:00If by alienating, you mean clinging tightly to the...If by alienating, you mean clinging tightly to the essentials because there are systems that don't meet the essentials and therefore are not Christian,then yes. Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-77167550842884316462013-10-28T19:47:42.199-07:002013-10-28T19:47:42.199-07:00I have always taken issue with the notion of "...I have always taken issue with the notion of "agreeing to disagree", at least since I first gave thought to what it means. It is not logical. It suggests that the opposing opinion is NOT so bad or wrong that it must or should be tolerated. It also seems that if, for example, you offered that treaty, then I surrender to some extent by allowing that my position might <i>not</i> be the more correct or valid position. It also forces me to be complicit in the notion that both positions are equally valid or of equal worth. I understand the desire to set aside an argument or debate, but to do so on these terms rubs me the wrong way. I most certainly do not agree to disagree or we would not have engaged in the debate in the first place. And worst part is that the other guy's opinion continues to be held as valid, all precedents set forth by the opinion continue to perpetuate its deleterious effects and the opposing opinion continues to stand in opposition to what I believe is the superior position, mitigating <i>its</i> effects. Rather than "agreeing to disagree", I would much prefer to simply say, "Let's postpone this debate until another time, keeping note of where we differ." or something to that effect.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-66458642780761891572013-10-28T17:29:06.164-07:002013-10-28T17:29:06.164-07:00I'm glad ... as long as you understood that th...I'm glad ... as long as you understood that there <i>are</i> times in which alienating people is biblical, right?Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-87547899907781532702013-10-28T13:41:00.196-07:002013-10-28T13:41:00.196-07:00"The Bible is full of Christians discussing w..."The Bible is full of Christians discussing with Christians what is or isn't true. Church history is the same. I'm pretty sure that I have not arrived at the point of perfect doctrine and I'm equally confident that no one else (except Christ, of course) has either. We ought to care enough about the truth to discuss it, debate it, examine it, seek it, pursue it. I suspect that too many too often opt to "agree to disagree" when they shouldn't because the issues are too important. I suspect as well that too many too often divide over nonessentials."<br /><br />This is fantastic and spot on. Great insight Stan. I love how you have demonstrated the importance of seeking the truth, and yet not at the cost of alienating others. Great piece. Joshnoreply@blogger.com