I get into a lot of debates with people of different religions and those with none at all. One thing that I like to do is challenge people on their sources. As a Catholic, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura so those sources go beyond Scripture. I accept quotations from Church fathers, ecumenical councils, papal documents etc.
A couple of years ago I had a debate with young lady who is a member of the Orthodox Church on whether or not smoking cigarettes was a sin. I said no and she said yes. This is word for word how our conversation went:
Young lady: Smoking cigarettes is a sin.
Allan: Why?
Young lady: Because it says so in the Bible.
Allan: Where in the Bible?
Young lady: Okay, maybe it’s not condemned in the Bible but Saints condemn it.
Allan: Which Saints?
She got mad at me at this point. She had no answer and was quite frustrated and changed the topic. Let me just point out for the record that I don’t smoke and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone but I don’t believe that one is sinning when they smoke one.
Notice what I was doing in this conversation. I wanted to know the sources. With a few simple, questions, I basically showed her that she had no sources for what she believed. Obviously she didn’t like smoking but she was unjustly using her religious beliefs to condemn it. What I did was expose the fact that she had no sources for what she was saying. She was essentially standing in mid air at this point.
Asking for sources is a way to shift the burden of proof. In other words, you put the ball in the opposing court and let them deal with the hard stuff. A good example is Islam and Bible corruption. They’ll claim that the Bible has been corrupted. At this point we can simply ask where and when. Most Muslims will be stumped on this but the few that will come up with an answer should be challenged on sources.
For example, they may say the council of Nicaea or something else. Simply ask them for the source. We know through Church history and manuscript evidence that the Bible has never been corrupted. Once they’re stumped, it’s good to engage in the counter attack.
At this point, when you’re dealing with any false religion or false ideology you’ll either expose the fact that he has no source for what they’re arguing or they have a very weak source. If one is dealing with a Muslim or an atheist, at the end of a long(or short) array of questioning, Bart Ehrman’s name will most likely surface.
I use this tactic all the time in one on one debate. That’s really the only place it can be the most effective. It isn’t always meant as a combative debating technique as well. If your opponent doesn’t fully know what they believe, it’s a good way to guide them.
To summarize things, ask questions and demand the source.
Have you used this method? Did it work for you? Do you use any other methods? Feel free to share below.
1. “We know through Church history and manuscript evidence that the Bible has never been corrupted.” – it depends on the authority you rely on. Contemporary textual critics (not only atheists like Ehrman and Carrier, but also supposed believers like Eldon Epp and Keith Elliott) are becoming increasingly sceptical about the certainty of the “recovered” text of the Bible. Brent Nongbri is being very successful at convincing his colleagues that several NT manuscripts (P52, for example), considered for a long time to be produced in the 2nd century, should actually be pushed to the 3d and even 4th century. Add the dominant view (more and more challenged, but still dominant) that the earliest stages of the NT transmission are the time when the most variations crept into the text, and the sky bleakens. The Pauline letters are another interesting matter- increasing number of textual critics are viewing them as patchworks, i.e. St. Paul’s letters are actually fused fragments of many other letters that are no longer extant. I reject these views, of course, I believe that the Church did preserve the authentic word of God through the manuscript tradition, not to mention that good chunk of the arguments in favor of the aforementioned academic scepticism are not convincing. But our Protestant friends, engaged in the never-ending quest for the “autographs”, are facing big troubles with their Sola Scriptura.
2. “…I don’t believe that one is sinning when they smoke one.”- and yet one is. And I’m glad you require sources, because sources there are, both Bible and saints. We are commanded to overcome our weaknesses and passions, otherwise we leave the path of righteousness. Smoking is a weakness and a passion, is it not? St. Peter has told us that “…by what a person is overcome, by it also he is brought into bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19). Isn’t smoking a bad bondage? Moreover, aren’t Christians supposed to protect not only their souls, but their bodies as well? St. Paul has told us: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Smoking is harmful for the body, therefore it defiles God’s temple. Later in the same letter St. Paul tells us: “For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” Smoking is surely not glorifying God in our body.
Now, the saints. I think one example is enough. St. John Chrysostom (venerated as a saint by Catholics and Orthodox alike) said in the Sixth homily on Romans: “For there be different kinds of idolatry, and one holds mammon lord, and another his belly his god, and a third some other most baneful lust.” Smoking is a baneful lust,is it not? I hope these settle the issue.
May God help us all.
Hi Orangehunter,
In terms of textual criticism I think they’re bored since there are very few manuscript finds these days. Therefore they have to throw out wild theories to get published, then others will respond and this will create a debate. That’s what Nongbri is doing.
Regarding smoking, I do believe that it can become a sin, though I believe it can be done responsibly. I smoke a cigar maybe once a month. I don’t believe it’s a sinful thing. What about having a beer, going to McDonalds or something similar? I do believe it is sinful in excess but I do believe that in moderation it’s fine. I don’t believe those things are baneful lusts, but I do believe they can be for some people. I should of been more specific. Either way, good points.
God bless,
Allan
1.”…they have to throw out wild theories to get published, then others will respond and this will create a debate.”- absolutely true. Publishing wild theories and defending them is how one propels their academic career forward. That’s why our vigilance is a must- the enemies of Christianity (mainly Muslims) will surely take advantage of this.
2. “What about having a beer, going to McDonalds or something similar? I do believe it is sinful in excess but I do believe that in moderation it’s fine.”- well, I have a glass of beer every day during summertime. But I don’t get drunk, moreover, beer is salutary for human body. As of McDonalds, I don’t know, I rarely go there anyway, but I’ve heard some pretty nasty things about their food. At the end of the day, I agree with your point, moderation is fine, excess is sinful.
May God help us all.
“That’s why our vigilance is a must- the enemies of Christianity (mainly Muslims) will surely take advantage of this.”
Lol, yep. Then people like Ijaz Ahmad will quote these wild theories as if they’re as good as gold.