When holding a discussion with someone of another faith (or even an atheist or another Christian) you may come across a sensitive issue that is hard to discuss without evoking an emotional response. This might be illustrated by Ergun Caner’s recent lecture in San Diego, CA where he identified the individuals who were pointing out his past and present lies as “haters.” As a California resident I got an earful from the pro-gay/pro-lesbian folks, telling me that I hate them for voting against (and blogging against) same-sex Marriage.

This technique is sometimes used when you are explaining the gospel to an unbeliever and they mistakenly conclude that you hate X (whether it is Mormons, Muslims, JW’s, Buddhists, etc) because you believe that their theology is wrong and you had the audacity to try to help them believe what is right. Rather than hear you out and weigh the merits of your case they try to put the brakes on the conversation (and excuse themselves from critical thought) by saying you are motivated by hate.

The ironic thing about this stopper is that you can’t disprove it to their satisfaction. Since they are attributing the worst motives to you for other reasons than actual observation of factors which normally indicate emotions (facial expression, volume, tone of voice, vocabulary, personality, etc) they will twist your words to keep accusing you. Take the following conversation as a model:

Christian: I believe that California should not endorse same-sex marriages for these reasons (X, Y, and Z)

Atheist: Are you serious?

Christian: Yes.

Atheist: You just a homophobe! You probably voted “yes” on Prop hate.

Christian: Prop hate?

Atheist: Yeah, aren’t you supposed to be loving as a Christian? Why do you hate gays and lesbians? Why would you deny them the right to marry?

Christian: I don’t hate them. I just gave you my reasons (X, Y, and Z) for opposing same-sex marriages. None of them involve me hating anybody! I love them and want the best for them, but I disagree with same-sex marriage.

Atheist: No, it’s pretty clear you hate them. Look how you are arguing with me.

This is not a verbatim conversation. It is an outline of many conversations which Christians have had since 2008. There may have been different words, but the basics are always present: the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are offered and ignored, hatred is attributed to the Christian as the sole/major reason for opposing same-sex marriage, the conversation dies.

Ergun Caner attributes hatred to people like James White and Turr8tin fan in a similar fashion. They listen to his old sermons and point out contradictions in his testimony. He could deal with them on that level, answering their claims, apologizing/repenting, etc. But instead of that he just calls them “haters” and excuses himself from the conversation. Think about it. Does calling someone a name or making up a false motive for them actually answer their argument? Clearly it doesn’t, all it does it shifts the focus from the issue at hand to the person bringing up the issue. And 99% of the time they are not motivated by hate.

But think about this. If you have ever called someone a “hater,” what if they actually hated whatever you were discussing. Is it logically impossible for someone who hates gay people to offer a good argument against same-sex marriage? Let me put it another way: Is it logically impossible for someone who hates math to offer a valid geometric proof? Same question, different object.

I mean, do you seriously tell a high school student who hates math, but studies hard anyways that he fails his test without even looking to see what he wrote down? If you don’t but you can still dismiss an argument from someone who may or may not legitimately hate homosexuals then you are inconsistent.

The principle here is simple: judge an argument by the merits of the argument itself, not the emotions (perceived or actual) of the person offering the argument.