Is There a Defense for Using Strong Language in an Argument?

The following article, Is There a Defense for Using Strong Language in an Argument?, was first published on The American Vision.

His harsh rhetoric a bad thing? Are there times when it’s OK to let loose with the truth in a way that disturbs some people? I have a saying: “Don’t give anyone a reason to reject your position other than the position itself.”

But sometimes reasoned arguments aren’t enough. Often, some people are dismissive of them, like “whatever” or the new “OK Boomer.” The Urban Dictionary defines “Ok boomer” as “a simple way to tell people to f**k off.” It’s like playing the race card. When the debate is lost or an argument can’t be made, slander and/or indifference become the tactic of those unable to answer an argument.

Jesus told the religious leaders of His day that the devil was their father:

You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Jesus described the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers” who were evil and could not say anything that was good (Matt. 12:34).

Twice Jesus drove out the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:15; Matt. 21:12-17).

Paul attacked those who demanded that new creatures in Christian must be circumcised. He was not kind in his response: “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves” (Gal. 5:12). The Greek word ἀποκόψονται is said to refer to castration. Of course, Paul is using strong language to make a point that is crucial to the Christian faith. There’s been a radical change in the covenant affecting Jews. The book of Hebrews is a detailed explanation of this fundamental truth. Harsh words were necessary to drive home the point.

Paul may have had Deuteronomy 23:1 in mind: “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

The LXX (ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the same Greek word (ἀποκόψονται) as Galatians 5:12.  There is no doubt that this verse is referring to genitalia.  The LXX and the New Testament uses this Greek word several more times to refer to cutting off body parts (toes, hands, and feet), as well as for cutting off clothes and a rope. (Source)

There are some classic Ronald Reagan moments. The most memorable is probably his “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” from his speech at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987. His most succinct comment was in San Diego, November 3, 1980, when he told a heckler, “Aw, shut up.”

Then there’s this from the 1980 GOP debate: “I am paying for this microphone.”

Reagan would be considered a radical today by his own party that believes you can play nice with the Democrats and still make conservative political progress. Reagan knew you needed to confront the opposition directly even if it wasn’t politically polite. Unfortunately, he was later surrounded by swamp Republicans who said he couldn’t win unless he had an establishment Republican as a running mate. Enter George H. W. Bush.

Reagan didn’t need Bush, but he fell for the classic claim made by Establishment Republicans, “You can’t win without us and if you do win without us we’ll destroy you.” It wasn’t said in these words, but that’s what it was all about.

Here’s the important part of the “tear down this wall” story. Even Reagan’s administration officials wanted him to cut the line from his speech because they believed it to be an “outright affront to the Soviet leadership.” Here’s what Peter Robinson, Reagan’s speechwriter, says happened:

[T]he speech was circulated to the State Department and the National Security Council. Both attempted to squelch it. The assistant secretary of state for Eastern European affairs challenged the speech by telephone. A senior member of the National Security Council staff protested the speech in memoranda. The ranking American diplomat in Berlin objected to the speech by cable. The draft was naive, it would raise false hopes. It was clumsy, it was needlessly provocative. State and the NSC submitted their own alternate drafts — my journal records that there were no fewer than seven, including one written by the diplomat in Berlin. In each, the call to tear down the wall was missing.

The Berlin Wall came down, East and West Berlin reunited, and the Soviet Union collapsed. The Eastern Bloc nations regained their sovereignty and borders.

Trump is following in the footsteps of Reagan but trying to do something Reagan could not do — drain the Washington cesspool.

Continue reading Is There a Defense for Using Strong Language in an Argument? …

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Visit www.AmericanVision.org for more information, content and resources