Comments on: Debates and Emotional Rhetoric http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/debates-and-emotional-rhetoric/ I follow Christ Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:45:11 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: TC http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/debates-and-emotional-rhetoric/#comment-4663 TC Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:17:23 +0000 http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/?p=349#comment-4663 Bryan, you have raised some important issues in your summary of the Ehrman-Wright debate. I've always enjoyed Wright except with some of his new perspective on Paul rhetoric. Ehrman is quite a maverick fellow. In seminary I wrote a research paper on the Problem of Pain and Suffering. It was a good exercise. I actually have Wright's The Problem of Evil and Justice on my to get list. I'm aware of the caricatures in the Calvinism-non-Calvinism debate. But that's a debate for another time. Good summary, btw! Bryan, you have raised some important issues in your summary of the Ehrman-Wright debate.

I’ve always enjoyed Wright except with some of his new perspective on Paul rhetoric. Ehrman is quite a maverick fellow.

In seminary I wrote a research paper on the Problem of Pain and Suffering. It was a good exercise.

I actually have Wright’s The Problem of Evil and Justice on my to get list.

I’m aware of the caricatures in the Calvinism-non-Calvinism debate. But that’s a debate for another time.

Good summary, btw!

]]> By: Bryan http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/debates-and-emotional-rhetoric/#comment-4662 Bryan Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:49:07 +0000 http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/?p=349#comment-4662 Yeah, that's definitely a hard but necessary balance. Obviously, there should be emotional reactions to certain things- some things are just down right disgusting or horrific. We should have an emotional response to those things. There is a difference between saying event A disproves/proves thesis B and using event A as an emotional appeal to get people to believe that it proves/disproves thesis B. Example. Calvinism hinders evangelism. That is a valid thesis, albeit a wrong one. Calvinists don't believe in evangelism, however, is not. Yeah, that’s definitely a hard but necessary balance. Obviously, there should be emotional reactions to certain things- some things are just down right disgusting or horrific. We should have an emotional response to those things. There is a difference between saying event A disproves/proves thesis B and using event A as an emotional appeal to get people to believe that it proves/disproves thesis B.

Example. Calvinism hinders evangelism. That is a valid thesis, albeit a wrong one. Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism, however, is not.

]]> By: Nathan Stitt http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/debates-and-emotional-rhetoric/#comment-4661 Nathan Stitt Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:16:45 +0000 http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/?p=349#comment-4661 There was a recent round of debate about inclusive language on a few blogs this past week. It was a bit mind numbing once it got picked up and batted around in more than one place. Fortunately it wasn't all that bad and I'm still looking forward to reading <i>The Inclusive Bible</i> when it comes in the mail next week. I found myself trying to stay balanced in my comments by not being too logical and trying to empathize with the emotional. It is pretty difficult though when emotional arguments are used as proof of a point. Nice post. There was a recent round of debate about inclusive language on a few blogs this past week. It was a bit mind numbing once it got picked up and batted around in more than one place. Fortunately it wasn’t all that bad and I’m still looking forward to reading The Inclusive Bible when it comes in the mail next week. I found myself trying to stay balanced in my comments by not being too logical and trying to empathize with the emotional. It is pretty difficult though when emotional arguments are used as proof of a point. Nice post.

]]>