• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How should we handle disagreement?

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This has been a busier time than usual for me on the BB. I have participated in multiple threads and have learned a lot about the positions others hold. Some of these threads result in 'passionate' discussion. That is fine. We are all big pants people. My question is, "How should we handle disagreement?" More specifically, how should we handle disagreement when we are not able to persuade another person of the correctness of our own position? While that may seem like a prideful statement, let us be honest. Folks do not normally hold to a position unless they think it is right.

In two recent threads (Universal Church and The Function of Law in the New Covenant Pt. 2) disagreements have been prolific. How should we assess the disagreements? Are all disagreements the same? I am not referring to the personal aspect of the disagreement, I mean the substance of one's argument about the topic being discussed. For instance, if one person believes the moral law of God exists and is in force today and one person does not, what are the ramifications of these two opposing views? Do we reach across the virtual table to shake the other person's hand and say, "Even though we disagree we are still brothers in Christ" or do we consider the other side's position to be outside the scope of orthodoxy so as to be rank heresy? Where do draw the line and when do we draw it? When do we just push away from the keyboard and say, "Impasse reached. We just fundamentally disagree."?
 
Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Be graceful.
Change takes time.
A discussion on a posting board is probably not going to change a persons view, short term,
...but it may act like a stone in a shoe.
Some may never change, live with it.
Focus on what you can change, yourself.

Rob
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1. Stop thinking you need to change someone else' view.
2. Stop taking our own posts so seriously. That does not mean the issue being discussed is not important but that our chiming in on is not.
3. Work to have a discussion not have a debate. Debating means one is looking to win an argument. Get over yourself.
 
JonShaff

JonShaff

Fellow Servant
Site Supporter
Good thread...I know i can be one of those "Passionate posters." ( I'm probably more unkind/ungracious than i'd actually admit). I think i would do well to note that i agree with people on certain points (maybe that will diffuse things a bit), and avoid using phrases like "You just don't get it."

and to be honest, some of the threads i engage myself in probably have little value--but it reveals how immature i really am.
 
Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many, many years ago I managed a diverse group of employees in a section of a city hospital; an overt religious witness was not acceptable.
I was able to post a saying by Chuck Swindoll above my desk that expressed the idea that we should look at ourselves before condemning others.

ATTITUDE by Charles Swindoll​

"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life.
Attitude, to me, is more important than facts.
It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think, say or do.
It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill.
It will make or break a company... a church... a home.
The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we embrace for that day.
We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way.
We cannot change the inevitable.
The only thing we can do is play the one string we have, and that is our attitude...
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it.
And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes”
​
My practice (not always followed very well), is if a thread get too hot for me its time to admit a character flaw and step out.

Rob
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
This has been a busier time than usual for me on the BB. I have participated in multiple threads and have learned a lot about the positions others hold. Some of these threads result in 'passionate' discussion. That is fine. We are all big pants people. My question is, "How should we handle disagreement?" More specifically, how should we handle disagreement when we are not able to persuade another person of the correctness of our own position? While that may seem like a prideful statement, let us be honest. Folks do not normally hold to a position unless they think it is right.

In two recent threads (Universal Church and The Function of Law in the New Covenant Pt. 2) disagreements have been prolific. How should we assess the disagreements? Are all disagreements the same? I am not referring to the personal aspect of the disagreement, I mean the substance of one's argument about the topic being discussed. For instance, if one person believes the moral law of God exists and is in force today and one person does not, what are the ramifications of these two opposing views? Do we reach across the virtual table to shake the other person's hand and say, "Even though we disagree we are still brothers in Christ" or do we consider the other side's position to be outside the scope of orthodoxy so as to be rank heresy? Where do draw the line and when do we draw it? When do we just push away from the keyboard and say, "Impasse reached. We just fundamentally disagree."?
Click to expand...
I think that we can agree to disagree here, as none of us are right in all things that we subscribe to, but we also should be willing to actually understand what the other party thinks that we are stating, as sometimes what we intend and what they are reading is not the same thing!
Also helps in we do not demonize the other viewpoint, not unless that position is clearly not per the scriptures!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Also,
Reformed said:
That is a great point. If we can leave an interaction with improving ourselves is some way, that is a good thing.
Click to expand...
be willing to grow and develop in our theology, as hopefully none of us see ourselves as having no more need to understand any
 
T

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
First of all I see very few on here changing their mind... I don't post to win an argument, that is not my intent but I post because other things should be considered... On some post I agree to disagree but am rarely adamant about it... I know others may have opposing views but I don't let that get under my skin... Many of us have been here a long time and the reason we are still here is we roll with the punches... Probably the C/A Forum is at times the most heated forum on here... You know the saying, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen... We are Christian brethren but be that as it is sometimes we just disagree... Brother Glen:)
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
This has been a busier time than usual for me on the BB. I have participated in multiple threads and have learned a lot about the positions others hold. Some of these threads result in 'passionate' discussion. That is fine. We are all big pants people. My question is, "How should we handle disagreement?" More specifically, how should we handle disagreement when we are not able to persuade another person of the correctness of our own position? While that may seem like a prideful statement, let us be honest. Folks do not normally hold to a position unless they think it is right.

In two recent threads (Universal Church and The Function of Law in the New Covenant Pt. 2) disagreements have been prolific. How should we assess the disagreements? Are all disagreements the same? I am not referring to the personal aspect of the disagreement, I mean the substance of one's argument about the topic being discussed. For instance, if one person believes the moral law of God exists and is in force today and one person does not, what are the ramifications of these two opposing views? Do we reach across the virtual table to shake the other person's hand and say, "Even though we disagree we are still brothers in Christ" or do we consider the other side's position to be outside the scope of orthodoxy so as to be rank heresy? Where do draw the line and when do we draw it? When do we just push away from the keyboard and say, "Impasse reached. We just fundamentally disagree."?
Click to expand...
I think beginning posts with accusations of ignorance is definitely not helpful.
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Philippians 2:3) (KJV 1900)
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
I think if a person is able to accurately state the other person's position in any discussion, it goes a long way to calming the overall tone. I believe the Bible says "a fool desires nothing more than to make his own mind known." Most of the time we just talk past each other.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
canadyjd said:
I think if a person is able to accurately state the other person's position in any discussion, it goes a long way to calming the overall tone. I believe the Bible says "a fool desires nothing more than to make his own mind known." Most of the time we just talk past each other.
Click to expand...

what happens around here is people state the other persons position with their own spin on it and in doing so misrepresents what they believe.
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jl.Dagg;
Any one who may desire to see a history of religious opinions, will not find it in this work.

Religion is an affair between every man and his God; and every man should seek to know the truth for himself, whatever may be the opinions of others respecting it.

It has been my aim to lead the mind of the reader directly to the sources of religious knowledge, and to incite him to investigate them for himself, without respect to human authority. He may learn, from the help which I am proffering him, what my views are, but I will here give the caution, once for all, not to adopt any opinion which I may advance, farther than it is well sustained by the word of God.

Had I wished him to fix his faith on human authority, I should have adduced quotations from writers of celebrity in support of my opinions; but I have chosen not to do so. It is my desire that the reader should see, in the doctrine here presented, so far as respects human authority, nothing but the mere opinion of a fallible worm;

but that so far as it is sustained by the word of God, he should receive it as the truth of God.

THE OBLIGATION. The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt.

To study theology, for the purpose of gratifying curiosity, or preparing for a profession, is an abuse and profanation of what ought to be regarded as most holy. To learn things pertaining to God, merely for the sake of amusement, or secular advantage, or to gratify the mere love of knowledge, is to treat the Most High with contempt.
 
T

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Iconoclast said:
Jl.Dagg;
Any one who may desire to see a history of religious opinions, will not find it in this work.

Religion is an affair between every man and his God; and every man should seek to know the truth for himself, whatever may be the opinions of others respecting it.

It has been my aim to lead the mind of the reader directly to the sources of religious knowledge, and to incite him to investigate them for himself, without respect to human authority. He may learn, from the help which I am proffering him, what my views are, but I will here give the caution, once for all, not to adopt any opinion which I may advance, farther than it is well sustained by the word of God.

Had I wished him to fix his faith on human authority, I should have adduced quotations from writers of celebrity in support of my opinions; but I have chosen not to do so. It is my desire that the reader should see, in the doctrine here presented, so far as respects human authority, nothing but the mere opinion of a fallible worm;

but that so far as it is sustained by the word of God, he should receive it as the truth of God.

THE OBLIGATION. The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt.

To study theology, for the purpose of gratifying curiosity, or preparing for a profession, is an abuse and profanation of what ought to be regarded as most holy. To learn things pertaining to God, merely for the sake of amusement, or secular advantage, or to gratify the mere love of knowledge, is to treat the Most High with contempt.
Click to expand...

I let brethren believe what they believe and on some things I disagree but if their mind or mine is going to be changed, the Lord is going to have to do it!... Brother Glen:)

Great post!... Iconoclast!:Thumbsup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top