# Rebutting accusations



## Christoffer (Jan 12, 2010)

Where I live the liberals fume when you start talking about christian ethics. For example, if I say that the man is to be the head of the household, usually the following remark is heard:

"that doctrine is dangerous and can lead to wife abuse", "when people have believed that, wife abuse has been common", "oh so you believe the man can beat his wife if she doesn't obey his every command" etc.

How do you defend against these sort of claims?


----------



## Bald_Brother (Jan 12, 2010)

"_Ignoratio elench_i (irrelevant conclusion) based on a self-referential argument from authority. Each of those claims are logically untenable (the third claim being a classic example of a false dilemma). The burden of proof is on you to support your claim."

That's how I would initially answer. My advice is always - _ learn logic_. At the very least learn the fallacies, study them, know them, avoid them, and identify them in your opponents argumentation.

Have in your pocket a good understanding of leadership in the family and how that applies to the church universal, church polity, and home life. Especially in view of Paul's exhortations to married folk in Ephesians 5:22-33 and what is meant by "_Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her_."


----------



## jason d (Jan 12, 2010)

would also just say "Straw-man!"


----------



## TimV (Jan 12, 2010)

Ask why liberal Finland's murder rate (which is 35 percent domestic violence) is 50% higher than conservative Switzerland's ;-) 



> According to a 1999 Economist poll, only 39% of the 3,000 Swiss women interviewed said they thought that “women should have all the same rights as men,” the second lowest proportion of the 11 countries polled (after Japan).


Switzerland, a Conservative Country for Women


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 1, 2010)

i think up front we have to aknowledge that the differance between us and the liberals is we are approeching ethics from two different worldviews. ideas and statements are like icebergs, you may only see a little ice on the surface but underneath the water is a whole foundation of ice supporting what you can see. statements like those are supported by a whole worldview. so pointing out to them that they cannot even justify one ethical stament withen their worldview will at least put them on the defensive.

another thing is that those statments are practical in nature. arguing for or against some ethical belief on practicality alone is never a good thing, both morally and logically. logically you can basically say so what, practical evidence cannot logically prove some ethical belief to be true or false. killing someone for practical reasons is still killing someone. that would be the moral problem here. practically you can argue for any sort of evil thing being o.k.


----------



## Tim (Feb 2, 2010)

You could also back up to the very beginning and ask, "what is your standard for right and wrong?".


----------

