Black, White, and Grey Issues

One of the not so smart things one can do - is to blog about an argument/discussion they had with another person - and rewrite the story in such a way to justify themselves and prove themselves to be the victor.

well, as I was arguing/discussing with some friends of friend just now, some things came to my mind.

How controversial do you allow yourself to speak? If you know it your heart what the truth is, but speak with some sort of mystery - or maybe not mystery - but leaving loopholes where people can misinterpret what you speak, is it still "the way to go"?

How clear do you have to be in what you say - so that people will learn something?

How far do you go in staying patient like a teacher , and gentle - and when do you start arguing like you are talking to some heretic (though he is not)?

To determine this, is it a matter of wisdom, or is it a matter of personality - or most probably a mixture of both - and how much of each to what extent?

Can I take Jesus as an example? He did say many enigmatic things and most times quite controversial. Reading through the gospels once isn't quite gonna be as fruitful as reading it through several times, going through the concordance, reading commentaries, etc.

Should one speak controversial things and think "Even Jesus speak controversial and sometimes unclear things. The righteous will interpret it to correct way, and the wicked will always twist the clearest word for evil purposes".

Can the source of confusion be amoral? Surely we know how any law or command can be blindly taken and obeyed as a form of legalism - or twisted into some form of licentiousness. But the confusion can definitely be amoral right? And to what extent?

Am I to keep thinking of everything going on a case by case basis? Isn't there a simple rule to follow? In trying to follow a simple rule - am I being lazy and choosing not to think, or am I simply not trusting in my judgements as to whether I will make the best decision?

How do I draw the line of "I have said what I need to say, it is up to you to take it whichever way you want" while keeping a clear conscience that I have tried my best? Perhaps trying my best was actually to stay on for another hour to persuade the person to see what I see, or see what I think they don't see.

All in all, truth is not relative. I need to figure out some way to convey these words plainly, without making it overscholarly such that simpler minds think I am being cunning, but yet I am being true to my word. I can perhaps understand how you can do that when you have an hour to yourself to explain everything, but in debates/discussions/arguments where there are lots of misinterpretations before everyone gets what everyone else is trying to get at - how do you exercise this?

By raising these many questions - am I already giving the reader and impression that this is a highly complex issue and there is probably no way out. I do not doubt that some will think "Gah, this is too much for my brain in the morning/afternoon/night" or " God will handel it" or "Don't know, don't care" - but I want to find it out. But I am also thinking of the possibility that maybe "don't know, don't care" may have been just the correct approach - because at the end of the day, there are so many unknowns and variables which is hard to determine.

I am trying to work towards something. But it doesn't look like I am getting there. Many questions might be a good way to start and investigation - but not a good way to make conclusions.

Should I just pray to God and say "Thank you God, teach me patience and teach me love" after thinking that whoever I was talking to didn't get the main point... or do I keep searching and look for the "killer argument" and start replaying scenes again, and thinking how I could have said certain things in certain ways such that they would be totally convinced?

This is how arguments normally ends "one/both party(ies) think that the other never did got the point no matter how much they said they got the point" - and in the name of diplomacy say things like "that was a great opinion you have" - which could be taken as:

1) Being courteous - the truth is I think that you are the stupidest person to have thought of such a stupid idea like that
2) Being courteous - I'm not smart enough to judge which is right, but whatever you said sounded plausible
3)Not being courteous - That was so totally WRONG

well, there is probably option 4), 5), 6) - I couldn't care less about them. You see, for all I know - somebody couldn't care less about whatever I just typed - to them, harmony, peace, friendship, nice feelings, enjoyment is all that counts - if they had to choose between truth and all these - they would go for "all these" - for truth to them is defined as "all these".

It is hard to convince another person of what truth is. A famous quote from Thomas Cranmer:

"What the heart loves, the will chooses, the mind justifies"

Modern science that goes on evidence and empirical reasoning would like to believe in the reverse:

"What the mind justifies, the will chooses, the heart loves" -
which sounds like something you get from Tony Robbins if you get what I mean.

How true is Thomas Cranmer's statement? Which was why I was just thinking, could the confusion be amoral? But a slightly clearer question is - regarding a moral issue:

Could confusion spring from amoral motivations? Or the wicked heart is always destined to justify error as truth? the righteous will then always make the right decision?

Doesn't this model look over simplistic such that it doesn't deal justly with the subject? They say "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart" - how much exceptions should I make for others and myself when I try to justify certain moral actions. Surely I should not degrade to some " God will prove me right during judgement day " sort of stupidity/arrogance? But what if time is the only thing that will tell?

What happened to trusting God to do His very special work in the hearts of men? What about confidence in what Scripture declares? Interpretation? Now that I suddenly thought of it, I might as well promote FWC here.

FWC 2010 Gospel and Interpretation

Sometimes, you want to do more good than harm - and you think you stand your ground and do the right thing. In the end of 70 years before you die, you realise that there are bad consequences which make you think that your initially taking a certain stand should have been different. But as you muse on whether you will/will not regret in 70 years time - you imagine the possibilities that your stand would have proven itself right in 500 years -

"the man who stood for the right things - who for a short while produced horrible consequences, but bore fruit for the next whole millenium"

What I think I can do - is to see and count as far as I can go - and utilize well what I know and have been entrusted - as to 100 years later - God knows:

Let the future worry for itself. For I am a mere man.

ps. Just so you know - I don't believe in grey. It is either black or white. Determining something as grey due to our ignorance is an act of arrogance (in believing that we have such foresight and intelligence to make judgements on things we are unsure of)