Agreeing to Disagree (shellfish part 2)

The following is how I chose to close my disagreement (from my previous post) with my friend over shellfish and the Levitical Bible laws. 

With disagreements we must avoid the trap of arguing rather than discussing.  To be sure it is impossible to correctly answer a rant over the Bible’s moral laws, so we must research and actually ask questions about specific verses (what the Bible actually says) as opposed to a string of poorly worded indictments.  Because there is a type of unreasoned argument (the scoffer, the eternal critic, the foolish jeering misaligner of motives) which pops up frequently against Christianity, many apologists have worked to counter such fallacious arguments.  I tend to find these exchanges, the scoffer vs. logic, the least productive; they aren’t actually discussions with both sides weighing and testing the strengths of each side’s hypothesis.  They tend to be shouting matches with at least one side screaming that the superiority of, and the legitimacy of their conclusions must be recognized.  In those cases no distinction is made between opinions and facts.  Discussing is working toward a conclusion, not insisting on it from the front end and denying any information which does not affirm the preconceived conclusion. 

Even if you totally deem my belief system to be false, civil communication rules dictate you must consider it as I have presented it, be able to understand it without distorting it, be able to repeat it, and then state your perceived weaknesses of the system as it actually has been presented, in turn I must do the same for your beliefs.  The first step is for you to show you have understood what my point was; then I will respond by affirming or denying your presentation of the original belief system.  If I deny it-you must work to better comprehend, otherwise there is no point in me defending a belief you have not understood and/or one I do not hold to.  If I affirm you have correctly understood the belief system I will address your logic based disagreement with a particular aspect of the belief.  In this manner a discussion may continue, even if no mutually agreed upon conclusion is reached.  I work hard to understand other people’s positions.  I read posts and supporting materials provided, so that I may show respect to people and so we might have an informed discussion.  Christianity is virile enough to defeat any counter thought system at maximum strength and presented in its purest form; I fear no counter-argument against my faith, in fact I welcome them. Understanding is the goal, not forced agreement.

I believe I have presented a pretty good case for why I believe what I do and how it jives with Christian logic.