baptist DEBATE forums

[Luke2427]

It seems to be a problem developing on here that one cannot state anything authoritatively or frankly without being attacked as arrogant and abrasive.

We have to speak in platitudes and tip toe around everyone's feeling laden sleeves until the men on here seem almost effeminate.

It is as if our speech is to be so bland and trite that nobody is ever wrong and everybody is always right. The only exception is when someone says he is right and someone else is wrong- then that person is arrogant and abrasive and unchristian and immature- and wrong.

Debate seems to be less and less about iron sharpening iron and more and more about propping up one another's tender egos.

What on earth is wrong with saying- "God bless you guys and I love you but this is clearly the way it is and your position is utterly ridiculous and here's why..."?

I appreciate a man who will put my ideas to the test. He doesn't do that over tea and cream puff pie. He turns the dogs loose on my ideas. And I thank him for it. If his dogs can tear my ideas to shreds then they have done me a favor. I'll go and get stronger ones.

There was a paradigm shift in American culture a while back. We made a significant move in our ideas of manhood from John Wayne and Charlton Heston and Gregory Peck and Douglas MacArthur and George Patton to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

I suspect it was the hippies that started us down that terrible road.

When did it become a right to not have your feelings hurt???

When did men get so concerned with feelings??

I read a study a while back that said that the testosterone level of men today is significantly lower than men 50 years ago. I believe it.


Why can't some of our brethren not comprehend that a Christian man can love you and knock you around a bit at the same time- and he's often times doing you a favor. The wounds of a friend are faithful.

Your ideas ought to be torn to shreds if they can be. Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

That is why I come here. To examine my ideas against contrary ones.

That is the goal of debate.

I was asked the other day if I talked to my church members the way I talk to some on here (it assumed I was being rude- and I actually was a bit too overagressive but nonetheless-) the answer is no. DEBATE is not for the shepherd (undershepherd of course) and his sheep. Worship service is not DEBATE. Midweek prayer and bible study is not for DEBATE.

DEBATE is like timber work in the old days. It is not a place for the feeble. Two men grab a cross cut saw and go to work on a tree. The tree is some truth that needs to be broken down and processed. The saw is the sharpness of the minds involved in the work. One pulls and then the other and then the other- to the untrained eye it looks as if the two are fighting over something that neither is willing to let go of. It is ugly. There is grimacing and grunting and gritting of teeth and pulling and jerking and sweat and blood-But to the lumberjack's eye it is a beautiful thing. Those two are not working against each other. They are giving each other hell- but at the same time they are working together- the only adversary is darkness, ignorance, falsehood. They are going to keep going back and forth until the truth is brought down and made useful for themselves and others.

A timber forest is no place for sheep and babes- it is a place for men (and you strong women too!). Church is no place for DEBATE- but that doesn't mean there's no place for it in the Kingdom. It is how we got the Jerusalem Council. It is how we got the Nicene Creed of 325 AD and Orthodoxy and the Canon. It is how we got the Protestant Reformation. It was a hot and hard and sweaty and ugly scene at times- but it produced some beautiful and essential things- much like the wood of the timber produces beautiful and essential things such as homes, etc...

Two strong people can appreciate mutual severe scrutiny. I'm not advocating ad hominem for the same reason I am speaking against effeminacy- it muddies the water and hinders the testing of arguments.

The one's who tend to make it personal are the very ones who start hurdling into the discussion terms like "arrogant" and "abrasive". Those are terms that describe a person- hence they make the conversation PERSONAL.

I know for a fact that there have been times when I did not say a single word- not one- about someone's person; I simply stayed firmly fixed on the dismantling of their arguments- and that person became so frustrated he began calling me names like "abrasive" and "arrogant" and "adolescent", etc... Name calling is the EPITOME of abrasiveness and arrogance and adolescence. That ought to be avoided simply because it detracts from the arguments themselves and hinders the whole purpose of debate.

But the one who is kicking your butt in the debate while not attacking you personally is not the one who is abrasive and arrogant and adolescent. You become those very things when you start calling him those very things. And you do it because you are getting your butt kicked and you are trying to save face. Suck it up and thank the person who is obliterating your ideas. He is doing you a great favor. Buy him a steak for so doing!

DEBATE is for the strong- period.

If you find the idea unpalatable, I think you should go and plant yourself in the fellowship forum and avoid the DEBATE forums until you get a thicker hide.

But let men and strong women hash it out and test ideas- or let's call this thing something else besides DEBATE.

 

[convicted1]

Bro Luke,

With all due respect, I do understand where you are coming from, and what you mean by this statement. However, someone can make a case for their beliefs and why the opposing side's are wrong without degrading someone. I have read some on here who have said...."or remain in ignorance". Where is this "iron sharpeneth iron"? This is like grinding the head of the axe with a whetstone instead of sharpening it.

When did it become a right to not have your feelings hurt???

When did it become right to have your feelings hurt? I can make a point, and prove them with scripture, and do it in a sensible manner and not degrade the one I am debating with.

It seems to be a problem developing on here that one cannot state anything authoritatively or frankly without being attacked as arrogant and abrasive.

One doesn't have to be like a bull in a china shop to get their point across. I can tell you I disagree with you, and do it in a way that is not authoritative, demeaning, arrogant, I am smarter than you, etc. If we don't agree with something, we don't agree. That's the way I feel about debates. They are just that, debates! But some people on here have gotten pretty personal in their attack of those who hold the opposing view. You know I love you, Bro Luke, don't you? I am not bashing you with this, but making some points on what I have observed going on in here.[/B]

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

Bro Luke,

With all due respect, I do understand where you are coming from, and what you mean by this statement. However, someone can make a case for their beliefs and why the opposing side's are wrong without degrading someone.

Agreed. That is what I am for.

I have read some on here who have said...."or remain in ignorance".

That's ad hominem and I am against it.

When did it become right to have your feelings hurt? I can make a point, and prove them with scripture, and do it in a sensible manner and not degrade the one I am debating with.

I agree.

One doesn't have to be like a bull in a china shop to get their point across.

Agreed- but they do have to be clear and frank.

I can tell you I disagree with you, and do it in a way that is not authoritative,

That is a mistake, I believe. If you cannot say it authoritatively then you should not say it at all in a DEBATE. Speaking with authority is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I do not want a doctor to speak to me sheepishly and abashedly about my condition and what he can do about it. I want him to be compassionate but frank and authoritative. I want to know that he knows what he is talking about.

demeaning, arrogant, I am smarter than you, etc.

Yea, but a lot of times folks are so tender that the least bit of debate makes them feel demeaned. Those folks have no business in a TIMBER forest.

If we don't agree with something, we don't agree.

Thank God that not the attitude Athansius took with the Arians in the fourth century. Standing is not a bad thing. Trying to convince others is certainly not a bad thing.

That's the way I feel about debates. They are just that, debates!

And they are essential to the very fabric of human civilization. DEBATE is a tremendous thing- it's not JUST debate.

But some people on here have gotten pretty personal in their attack of those who hold the opposing view.

I oppose that with all of my heart. The goal is to help the person by testing his ideas.

You know I love you, Bro Luke, don't you? I am not bashing you with this, but making some points on what I have observed going on in here.[/B]

This is not necessary, Bro. Conviction. I don't ever take anything you say as "bashing". I think it is unfortunate that we feel that we have to clarify so much. Men ought to be able to talk without petting one another, don't you think?

God bless!

 

[convicted1]

Bro. Luke,

I am thankful that we can see "eye-to-eye", even though our theologies are different in many ways!! This is what I am trying to point out. Too many times on here, people get huffed and puffed up and really don't seem to consider the other one's feelings. That's why I try to stay away from some on here. It's their way, or no way. I can agree and disagree in love but some on here don't seem to have that capacity. Plus, sometimes, "tones" are hard to get a handle on from a computer screen and keyboard. I have went back and read something I posted, and hoped it didn't "sound" the way it looked on here. That was my point, too. It's hard to "hear" on here, and know if someone is being "snippy", or joking, or trying to make a point pleasantly, and it just came out wrong!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[kyredneck]

Good post Luke. I agree with everything you said. Folks that carry their feelings around in their hands should not debate, and I do not think you to be arrogant or abrasive, perseverant maybe, but not arrogant or abrasive.

 

[Amy.G]

The truth will stand on it's on. It does not need abrasiveness, rudeness, loudness, or the attempt to sound authoritative. These are fleshly attempts to force what we "perceive" is the truth onto someone else.

To flat out say "I am right and you are wrong" is arrogant, because there is always the chance that we may be wrong. If what we say is true, it will stand. God really does not NEED our help. We are to join Him in His work, but leave the results to Him.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Why can't you be "authoritative"? BEcause few of us here are in an actual position of spiritual authority over any other member of the BB. We do have a few husband/wife members where the husband could be considered the wife's spiritual authority, but for the rest of us:

WE HAVE NO HIGH PRIEST! Our spiritual authority is the Word and the Holy Spirit. We may not like the divisions this appears to create within our ranks, but this is how God has decided to set up His church.

So, when you set yourself up as the end all/be all of a discussion/debate, you are being arrogant! What God expects out of you where you live, among the people He has set you in to witness to, might be very, very different from what God needs me to do.

It's not about getting feelings hurt. Its about each of "working out our salvation" according how the scriptures apply to our own lives.

Name calling and arrogance have no place in the lives of believers who are called to peace, joy and love. We are supposed to love one another in such a way for it to be clear we love the Lord. We often fall short of that here.

 

[drfuss]

I don't think this is only a debate forum. I consider this forum to also be a discussion and information exchange forum. I stopped debating on here long ago, but I do sometimes participate on here as a discussion and information exchange participant.

 

[Gershom]

Quarreling should not be hidden behind the word "debate." It need not include arrogance, abrasiveness, haughtiness, questioning another's salvation, name-calling, etc. especially among preachers and teachers to whom Paul has instructed to be "gentle to all" and "patient" and "humble."

I am sure the curious unbelievers who check in here get a jolly good laugh at how some treat others, same as the devil enjoys watching Christians shoot each other. While we are busy in this place hitting one another over the head with our remarks, someone out in the world needs a cup of cold water.

 

[webdog]

The last four posts are spot on and evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence. :thumbs:

The fact is, without truth you can be as abrasive, authoritative, frank or type in the largest font available...but if it not truth or based on truth it goes for naught and opinions will not be changed.

How many opinions have been changed by simply being abrasive or rude? I've changed numerous views over the years but the ONLY reason was due to truth.

 

[Benjamin]

“Logical” debate should, and does if practical, stem from the science of philosophy. This scientific branch of philosophy (logic) is concerned with drawing out the truth by presenting reasons for a claim, and if those reasons are true would justify accepting the claim. To begin this process, one must first understand the differences between an “argument- *A*” (two people disagreeing and trying to win a fight) and a “philosophical argument- *B*” (intelligent debate primarily aimed at drawing out the truth) then they will quickly learn to recognize “rhetoric”. (Rhetoric is a language used to primarily persuade or influence the beliefs or attitudes rather than to “prove” logically the truth of a claim.) Simply, being abrasive and flexing testosterone serves no purpose in drawing out the truth of a claim, it is *A*, it is intimidation meant to influence, it is “rhetoric”. Using rhetorical devices may enhance the persuasive force of *A* but they do not add to the logical force of arguments - *B*.

You’ve heard the saying around hear about the preacher’s notes which say “weak point, pound the pulpit hard” …this is a classical and humerus example of logical fallacy BECAUSE …(BTW, capitalizing “because” is also using rhetoric language to attempt to influence, but does not add to the truth) ….it uses a rhetoric device in an attempt to prove a point , but does it, really?

The problem is that centering on *A* is offensive to others and is not geared to drawing out the truth, it is merely fighting to win. If one really wants to be a good Christian debater he should be aware of these differences and proceed appropriately. At a minimum he/she should try to hold back the meaningless rhetorical language for the above reasons.

 

[Gershom]

The last four posts are spot on and evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence. :thumbs:

The fact is, without truth you can be as abrasive, authoritative, frank or type in the largest font available...but if it not truth or based on truth it goes for naught and opinions will not be changed.

How many opinions have been changed by simply being abrasive or rude? I've changed numerous views over the years but the ONLY reason was due to truth.

Amen to that.

 

[Robert Snow]

The difficulty, I believe, is that we are so convinced we are correct, and only we are correct that it is easy to just dismiss others as either ignorant or disobedient, or possibly not even belonging to Christ in the first place.

There is a lot of difference in saying to someone, "I don't believe you are correct and here's why." And saying, "Only someone who is ignorant and out of touch could possibly believe some of the garbage like you spew here!"

Granted, what that person believes is something we might consider theological garbage, but do we have to say it that way? Even if we are correct and their viewpoint is garbage, do you think we will convince them of their error with this attitude?

If you were attempting to convince someone on the street about something, and they were filthy, would you say, "Man you need a bath!" Oh, and like I was saying...

 

[Luke2427]

Quarreling should not be hidden behind the word "debate." It need not include arrogance, abrasiveness, haughtiness, questioning another's salvation, name-calling, etc. especially among preachers and teachers to whom Paul has instructed to be "gentle to all" and "patient" and "humble."

I agree 100%. That's what I argued against in my post.

Calling someone or insinuating that someone is arrogant, abrasive, haughty, etc... is arrogant, abrasive, haughty, etc...

When you call someone arrogant you are embarking on name calling. Name calling is arrogant.

When you call someone abrasive- you are being abrasive. You might argue that yours is responsive but it does not change the fact that you yourself are embarking on abrasive name calling.

Not only so but it is ad hominem. It is the essence of name calling.

I think some folks have a hard time differentiating between the decimation of arguments which is the essence of debate and ad hominem.

When some folks have their arguments destroyed they embark on ad hominem by calling their "opponent" names like abrasive, arrogant, etc... And by so doing they detract from the subject matter and themselves become abrasive, arrogant, etc...

 

[Luke2427]

The last four posts are spot on and evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence. :thumbs:

You are being very authoritative in this remark. You are stating it as if it is fact. You are frankly remarking that they are right and whoever is in disagreement is wrong.

This is speaking authoritatively.

You are being authoritative while speaking against being authoritative.

 

[Luke2427]

“Logical” debate should, and does if practical, stem from the science of philosophy. This scientific branch of philosophy (logic) is concerned with drawing out the truth by presenting reasons for a claim, and if those reasons are true would justify accepting the claim. To begin this process, one must first understand the differences between an “argument- *A*” (two people disagreeing and trying to win a fight) and a “philosophical argument- *B*” (intelligent debate primarily aimed at drawing out the truth) then they will quickly learn to recognize “rhetoric”.

Absolutely. I am in total agreement. Good work.

(Rhetoric is a language used to primarily persuade or influence the beliefs or attitudes rather than to “prove” logically the truth of a claim.)

Exactly. Spot on. Dynamite.

Simply, being abrasive and flexing testosterone serves no purpose in drawing out the truth of a claim, it is *A*, it is intimidation meant to influence, it is “rhetoric”. Using rhetorical devices may enhance the persuasive force of *A* but they do not add to the logical force of arguments - *B*.

Yes. And declaring the person who states truths authoritatively to be arrogant and abrasive is "rhetoric" used to intimidate the person from being authoritative. This is done because most people find statements with which they disagree to be more palatable if they are more like question marks than periods.

But we believe in speaking authoritatively in everyday life. God is real. We'd rather say it that way than- God is possibly real, isn't he?

But the atheist says to the former remark- you are being arrogant.

This is just rhetoric intended to intimidate the Theist from being authoritative.

You’ve heard the saying around hear about the preacher’s notes which say “weak point, pound the pulpit hard” …this is a classical and humerus example of logical fallacy BECAUSE …(BTW, capitalizing “because” is also using rhetoric language to attempt to influence, but does not add to the truth) ….it uses a rhetoric device in an attempt to prove a point , but does it, really?

Yes. Absolutely. And when a person is decimating arguments by sheer logic and Scripture while not in any way attacking his "opponent's" person- and someone begins to call him abrasive and arrogant for it- the one who starts in with the personal attacks is the pulpit pounder.

The problem is that centering on *A* is offensive to others and is not geared to drawing out the truth, it is merely fighting to win. If one really wants to be a good Christian debater he should be aware of these differences and proceed appropriately. At a minimum he/she should try to hold back the meaningless rhetorical language for the above reasons.

Absolutely. I agree with every word of your post- so long as you realize that many people who are being defeated by sheer logic, no rhetoric, often get upset and resort to ad hominem attacks of the person who is defeating them by calling them names like "arrogant", "abrasive", etc... Good work.

 

[Luke2427]

The difficulty, I believe, is that we are so convinced we are correct, and only we are correct that it is easy to just dismiss others as either ignorant or disobedient, or possibly not even belonging to Christ in the first place.

Right. Or to dismiss them as arrogant and abrasive.

There is a lot of difference in saying to someone, "I don't believe you are correct and here's why." And saying, "Only someone who is ignorant and out of touch could possibly believe some of the garbage like you spew here!"

I agree with this one hundred thousand percent.

Granted, what that person believes is something we might consider theological garbage, but do we have to say it that way? Even if we are correct and their viewpoint is garbage, do you think we will convince them of their error with this attitude?

No. In fact, I figure that the chances of convincing most people of anything on here are slim. But what we hope to accomplish is to influence the thinking of those who might read the exchanges who are not already bent against our viewpoint. We will do this by presenting strong arguments not by ad hominem.

If you were attempting to convince someone on the street about something, and they were filthy, would you say, "Man you need a bath!" Oh, and like I was saying...

No because that would be ad hominem and we ought to avoid this at all costs. It is a logical fallacy that detracts from the processing of truth.

 

[John Toppass]

I don't think you can agree anymore than 100%. I say this with authority.

 

[Luke2427]

The truth will stand on it's on. It does not need abrasiveness, rudeness, loudness, or the attempt to sound authoritative. These are fleshly attempts to force what we "perceive" is the truth onto someone else.

Absolutely. That's why we should all avoid being abrasive, rude and loud by calling people names like "abrasive, rude and loud"- particularly if they are ONLY decimating arguments and not involved in PERSONAL attacks.

But authoritativeness is essential to debate. If you cannot speak authoritatively in debate then you should not speak at all.

If a doctor cannot speak authoritatively concerning medicine then he should have never been given a PhD- and he should go back to school until he CAN speak with authority.

The same is true with the plumber, electrician, lawyer and apologist. Authority is necessary and if we do know what we are talking about we need to speak in such a way that others can rest at ease that we know what we are talking about.

To flat out say "I am right and you are wrong" is arrogant, because there is always the chance that we may be wrong.

This is relativism. It assumes that we can never know what is right or wrong. That we can not be sure of anything. If we CAN be sure of something then we can speak with assurance, aka, authority.

When you say it is WRONG to blaspheme the name of God- are you being arrogant?

When you say, "You are wrong that Jesus was a whoremongerer who slept with Mary Magdalene and raised bastard children and I am right that Jesus was the perfect, spotless, sinless lamb of God"- are you being arrogant?

If what we say is true, it will stand. God really does not NEED our help. We are to join Him in His work, but leave the results to Him.

God does not NEED anything. But he tells us to speak boldly for him. Look up the word bold, boldly, boldness in the Strong's and see how many times it is used to describe the preaching and apologetics of the the early church. You will be surprised.

One of those is when Stephen DEBATED the council in Acts 7. It says they could not resist the wisdom with which he spake. It eventually angered them so that they gnashed on him with their teeth and stoned him to death.

I think havensdad is being stoned by some on the other thread because they cannot resist the wisdom with which he speaks.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't think you can agree anymore than 100%. I say this with authority.

That's great! Very funny!:laugh::laugh: