Why Do You Hate?
In response to my previous post, I was asked, how do you reason with the unreasonable?
Well, we have to admit that there is a sense in which we cannot. For example, I preach open-air on college campuses. A year ago, students insisted that I “hate Muslims,” because I don’t believe that Muhammad is a Prophet! This is the dialogue that ensued:
“Why do you think I hate Muslims?”
“You are saying they are wrong?” responded many, including a few Muslims.
“So, you’re telling me that if I think someone is wrong that I hate them?”
“Well, I can assure you that I don’t.”
“Well, you’re saying they’re wrong. If you loved them you wouldn’t do that.”
I turned to the Muslim students and asked, “The Koran teaches that God does not have a son. I teach that God does. Am I wrong?” They nodded yes.
“The Koran teaches that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but I teach that he was. Am I wrong?” They nod again.
“I teach that God became flesh and blood and dwelt amongst us, do you believe that?” “No!”
“Am I wrong to say that God became a man?”
“Ok, so I’m wrong at these points?”
“Do you hate me?”
“So, you can think I’m wrong and not hate me, is it possible that I can think Muslims and others are wrong and not hate them?”
Many responded, “NO!”
Major Premise: One hates if you believe another is wrong.
Minor Premise: Keith believes Muslims are wrong.
Conclusions: Therefore, Keith hates Muslims.
The crowd believed that logic, but rejected this logic:
Major Premise: One hates if you believe another is wrong.
Minor Premise: The Muslim, Atheist and Agnostics believed Keith is wrong.
Conclusions: Therefore, the Muslim, Atheist, and Agnostic Students do not hate Keith.
Is their conclusion logical? Absolutely not!
Reasoning with the Unreasonable
So, how do you reason with the unreasonable? As mentioned, there’s a sense in which you cannot. The only thing you can do is press their premises down on them, trusting that God’s Spirit uses logic (He does) to bring Truth to your family, friends, and the stranger.
Culturally, one of our current difficulties is “polylogic.” Ludwig von Mises, who coined the term, describes it this way:
Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.
I think that’s America. What is America’s diversity obsession all about? Polylogism. Given the rise of intersectionality, one can reasonably conclude that every single individual has his own logical structures and there is no genus of logic, so polylogism ends all personal interactions. There is no reason to believe polylogism holds only to a particular race, class, gender, or sexuality, because of the intersection of all these categories in any given individual. So, I would say that polylogism is self-refuting.
If the logical structure of the mind is predicated on your class/race, then you only hold to polylogism because of your race/class. There is no truth to polylogism per se, but only the fruit of racial/class structures. If polylogism transcends class/race, then it is not predicated on class/race strutures but a universal truth, which would nullify belief in polylogism and admit of a universal logic. How did the polylogician escape his class/race to realize the universal law of polylogism?
Second, practically speaking, if a poor man reasons like a rich man, how did the logical structure of his mind change? Was it through argument? Money? Work?
In short, the Marxists declares his logic right, because he is part of the correct class. As a Christian, I am in the wrong class and my “Christian Logic” is a tool of hate. The Secular and the Muslim, being perceived as of the right classes, are of the “right logic” by declaration, not by argument, hence the unreasonableness.
So, how do we reason with them? We meditate on God’s Law and think about this:
You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
You demonstrate to the unbeliever that he arrives to the market place of ideas with unjust weights and measures. As you interact, listen for the weights and measures that he is using against you. Francis Schaeffer (so I’ve been told) encouraged Christians to listen for 55 minutes, asking questions, and to talk for 5, so we have something meaningful to say. Do that.
Listen for his measurement? The students measurement for me was “One hates if you believe another is wrong.” Now, given that weight, we’d have to say, if you think hate is wrong, then it is because you hate? This is because of the weights and measures that he uses!
If he’s willing to measure himself by his own weights, then simply seek to show that he cannot live by his premises. The rules he brings for judgment will be self-refuting, because “reality has a way of intruding.”
The reality that intrudes is that your neighbor, although made in the image of YHWH, is in rebellion to him. Yet God says:
Come, let us reason together, says YHWH:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
The problem with the unreasonable is, ultimately, his sin. In the Biblical World man is guilty and he tries to find every loophole in the law to escape his shame and guilt. He doesn’t love the King, but the King loves him. He thinks the King’s laws are unjust and cruel – only a tyrant would send someone to Hell. It is this very rebellion that’s rooted deep in the heart of man that needs to be removed and transformed, and it is for that reason that YHWH tells the criminal to “COME! let us reason together!”