Debating

[Stan]

You thought and comments appreciated...

[melvin mccarty]

No problem with debating IF it is labelled as a debate and proper debating rules are followed including judges and a winner decided. BUT do we need a "discussion" that goes on for umpteen pages using debating tactics? I think not.

mel

[Clio]

tu

[Dr. Shane]

I think many of the members here do not come to debate and are not prepared to do so. A handful of us are. EDD, David Koot, John 317, Bravus, Neil D and myself seem to be able to roll with the punches, give it and take it.

I know for myself, when two or three members get into a heavy debate, that I am not directly involved with, I tend to just drop out of the thread and not even follow it any longer.

I think feelings get hurt when someone comes in and states an opinion on an issue that is not universally believed within the church (women's ordination, jewelry, faith and works, etc) and then someone challenges their opinion in a bulldog debating style. I would like to think that we are a place where regular Adventists that sit in the pews but are afraid or intimidated to express their opinions in the local church can come and express themselves without being attacked as an individual or have their sincerity as a believer brought into question. Challenging another member's opinion on a controversial issue then becomes a delicate art of communications that we need to try and refine.

OK, that is my 2 cents.

[Guest charis]

There's a big difference to challenging someone's viewpoint with debate vs challenging them to a cyber duel. Duels hurt, maim, or kill. Debates are not (or should not be) toxic. I think there's been too many duels here lately. Just imho.

**steps out of thread**

[melvin mccarty]

But Shane the people you mention are not really debating but rather rehashing their own opinions endlessly ad nauseum. No conclusions are arrived at and it is rare to see any of you changing your minds on anything.

mel

[Amelia]

Melvin, I was just going to say something simular.

What I have notice too, a few members who can't stand not having the last word. Now that is annoying.

[Dr. Shane]

Some of us need the last word because we are insecure victims of our childhoods

[D. Allan]

That Christians are polite and kind is an illusion that was shattered and left, for a while, a grief in my heart, and for an even longer while (perhaps permanantly) a scar, - oversensitive nitwit that I was.

[Amelia]

You are not a nitwit. I can't comment on the oversensitive as I dont know you that well. But I know you are no nitwit.

[John317]

What's the difference between exchangning viewpoints or replying to something that you consider inaccurate or unfair, and a "debate"? I'm actually opposed to "debating" because in a debate, both sides are really only interested in "winning." In that situation, learning or understanding the "truth" is rarely the objective. In fact, "debaters" often twist the truth in order to "win," and therein lies the real problem with debates.

I carry on a dialogue about issues and questions but if I thought that people see it as inappropriate or argumentative, I wouldn't participate in anything like it again on CA. I have carried on what I consider a dialogue with Robert about the law, but that is because I consider it a very important subject, and I believe we are both having a good time discussing that issue. I don't find that either of us have a bad atttitude toward each other, and I believe that we are both enjoying the discussion. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be on the thread. (I've never shown any disrespect to anyone, and even when people have called me names, I don't get upset or call names back.) If anyone wants to see another example of a thread where I am having a good dialogue with someone, check out the "Restoration, salvation," or the "Leviticus" threads, where I've been mostly exchanging viewpoints with JASD.

Perhaps some people think these discussions or "debates" run on too long, but we have to realize that it can take months for some subjects to be thoroughly thought through and for some people to make changes in their thinking. Perhaps some of these threads would be better off done by PM, but I prefer to do it in public so that others who want to take part can do so.

If I thought, however, that the threads were harmful to visitors or anyone on CA, I would stop taking part in them yesterday.

[Clio]

Quote:

If I thought, however, that the threads were harmful to visitors or anyone on CA, I would stop taking part in them yesterday.

They are.

[John317]

Quote:

If I thought, however, that the threads were harmful to visitors or anyone on CA, I would stop taking part in them yesterday.

They are.

Give me an example of how they have been harmful. Be as specific as possible.

[Amelia]

God created us with two ends.

One on which to sit the other with which to choose.

Our success depends on which we use the most.

Heads we win, tails we lose.

[John317]

Excellent. Do you have any more pithy ones like that?

[Amelia]

Quote:

Excellent. Do you have any more pithy ones like that?

[Denise]

Quote:

but I prefer to do it in public so that others who want to take part can do so.

John 3:17, I really enjoy reading these deep spiritual discussions, because I learn from them myself. I don't find them harmful at all. So, I am with you on that......

[D. Allan]

Thank you, Amelia. :)

[John317]

Thank you, very much, Denise.

[melvin mccarty]

Luke 18:9-14

mel

[John317]

Luke 18:9-14

mel

Amen to that.

[John317]

Luke 18:9-14

mel

There can be no self-exaltation, no boastful claim to freedom from sin, on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary's cross. They feel that it was their sin which caused the agony that broke the heart of the Son of God, and this thought will lead them to self-abasement. Those who live nearest to Jesus discern most clearly the frailty and sinfulness of humanity, and their only hope is in the merit of a crucified and risen Saviour.

The sanctification now gaining prominence in the religious world carries with it a spirit of self-exaltation and a disregard for the law of God that mark it as foreign to the religion of the Bible. Its advocates teach that sanctification is an instantaneous work, by which, through faith alone, they attain to perfect holiness. "Only believe," say they, "and the blessing is yours." No further effort on the part of the receiver is supposed to be required. At the same time they deny the authority of the law of God, urging that they are released from obligation to keep the commandments. But is it possible for men to be holy, in accord with the will and character of God, without coming into harmony with the principles which are an expression of His nature and will, and which show what is well pleasing to Him?

The Great Controversy, p. 471

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

There can be no self-exaltation, no boastful claim to freedom from sin, on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary's cross. They feel that it was their sin which caused the agony that broke the heart of the Son of God, and this thought will lead them to self-abasement. Those who live nearest to Jesus discern most clearly the frailty and sinfulness of humanity, and their only hope is in the merit of a crucified and risen Saviour.

The sanctification now gaining prominence in the religious world carries with it a spirit of self-exaltation and a disregard for the law of God that mark it as foreign to the religion of the Bible. Its advocates teach that sanctification is an instantaneous work, by which, through faith alone, they attain to perfect holiness. "Only believe," say they, "and the blessing is yours." No further effort on the part of the receiver is supposed to be required. At the same time they deny the authority of the law of God, urging that they are released from obligation to keep the commandments. But is it possible for men to be holy, in accord with the will and character of God, without coming into harmony with the principles which are an expression of His nature and will, and which show what is well pleasing to Him?

The Great Controversy, p. 471

I don't usually feel like endorsing quotes of EGW because people usually use her to try to prove their specific ideas about something scriptural. THIS quote, however, with the question on the end, is something I can relate to - it's something familiar and makes me think, "oh..okay...yeah! I get that!" :

('course, maybe I'm just stupid about the other EGW quotes that people throw out as "proofs" in their debates)

Just to tag on about debates....should not both sides of a debate be knowledgeable of each other's stance? That's how I was taught debate. And it's how my father taught debate to his students. Unless you clearly understand the oppositions side, you cannot really justify your opposing argument, and you may be caught with your pants down. Persuasion by debate requires at least a rudimentay understanding of what the other side believes. imho

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

There can be no self-exaltation, no boastful claim to freedom from sin, on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary's cross. They feel that it was their sin which caused the agony that broke the heart of the Son of God, and this thought will lead them to self-abasement. Those who live nearest to Jesus discern most clearly the frailty and sinfulness of humanity, and their only hope is in the merit of a crucified and risen Saviour.

The sanctification now gaining prominence in the religious world carries with it a spirit of self-exaltation and a disregard for the law of God that mark it as foreign to the religion of the Bible. Its advocates teach that sanctification is an instantaneous work, by which, through faith alone, they attain to perfect holiness. "Only believe," say they, "and the blessing is yours." No further effort on the part of the receiver is supposed to be required. At the same time they deny the authority of the law of God, urging that they are released from obligation to keep the commandments. But is it possible for men to be holy, in accord with the will and character of God, without coming into harmony with the principles which are an expression of His nature and will, and which show what is well pleasing to Him?

The Great Controversy, p. 471

I don't usually feel like endorsing quotes of EGW because people usually use her to try to prove their specific ideas about something scriptural. THIS quote, however, with the question on the end, is something I can relate to - it's something familiar and makes me think, "oh..okay...yeah! I get that!" :

('course, maybe I'm just stupid about the other EGW quotes that people throw out as "proofs" in their debates)

Just to tag on about debates....should not both sides of a debate be knowledgeable of each other's stance? That's how I was taught debate. And it's how my father taught debate to his students. Unless you clearly understand the oppositions side, you cannot really justify your opposing argument, and you may be caught with your pants down. Persuasion by debate requires at least a rudimentay understanding of what the other side believes. imho

Agree completely with you.

However, I am opposed to debates in the true sense of the word. In a debate the whole purpose is to win rather than to learn the truth. In a debate, people's desire to win often-- even usually-- causes them to twist the truth or state half-truths, etc. Debates don't arrive at truth so much as they show who is best at debate. One is plainly not the same as the other. It's all about the art of persuasion, not the discovery of truth. Anyone who has studied rhetoric knows this, because all of the great teachers of rhetoric taught these principles.

I see a difference between "debates" and dialoguing or having a conversation with someone about two different viewpoints. It is more like what takes place in Plato's dialogues. It is called a dialectic, which just simply means people are questioned and answers given, then questioned again, etc. Dialectics can continue for quite a while, a process which admittedly may bore or tire some people and which requires a great deal of perseverence and passion about the subject in order to pursue it to the conclusion. Debate, on the other hand, most often generates more heat than light. The heat-- i.e., anger-- drives the Holy Spirit away from the discussion. For these reasons, then, I believe dialogues are the best way to arrive at the truth, rather than by debate.

[CyberGuy]

You kill the debating and you will kill the forum. Many come to debate or to read the debates.