Arguing vs Debating vs Discussing

[DesiderioDomini]

Thanks for the discussion John. You are quite refreshing to discuss with for a "KJVer".

First of all, I agree with you that there is righteous anger. But it had better be for the Lord and not because I was personally offended or frustrated.

Very very true. Being angry for a selfish reason is already a sin. I would like for you to think about this: Is being angry over a wrong done (such as the one we are discussing), but for a selfish reason, any less wrong than ignoring a wrong when one should speak up? I think you would agree in the negative, that both are wrong. Its a balance: we must stand against Christians who profess binding beliefs yet refuse to allow them to be challenged and discussed because even though you and I may have the firmness of mind and will to ignore it, some Christians dont. Example: There are only 2 issues that ever caused major problems for kids in my youth group: KJVO and calvanism. Mine and your opinions on the matters aside, every problem came from people who held these beliefs stating categorically that everyone was bound to believe as they do, and if they didnt God would judge them. How does this sound to a 13 year old girl who's been saved for 3 weeks? They werent trying to teach her, they were trying to INDOCTRINATE her, overpower her. I see the same things from over the top fundamentalist preachers who think if you tell someone they are going to hell enough times, they will accept Christ. I feel its dishonest as a Christian to engage in such tactics, and I feel anyone convinced by such methods will never truely believe said idea at all unless more honest discussion or research is takes place. This makes me angry for them, because they feel guilted into a belief, but they dont really BELIEVE it. You can DO something or SAY something because of COERSION, but it is impossible to BELIEVE something by such means. The only product is confusion.

Thoughts?

As I said previously, and I truly do mean this, I do not do guilt trips. I ignore others who presume to tell me God's will for me.

As do I, but I feel you and I are hardheaded, and some of our milder mannered Christians are more susceptable to these tactics. I feel my anger comes from defense of them. When one puts forth a belief in such ways, using guilt and misleading evidence, such as many do in the bible translation discussion, I feel for every false statement made on this board, 10 more are made to real people in an attempt to convince them. How do you propose we handle that, or is it even our responsiblity to try? Thoughts?

Further, I don't get angry when personally attacked and criticized. (Just don't attack my family.) Why?

(1) I look to God and His will for me, do it the best I can, and thus truly am not offended or angered if someone else dislikes me, disagrees with me or gets angry with me. I aim to please God, not man.

I think I am the same way, as I stated already, I dont feel angered for me at all because I dont care what someone THINKS if they cant back it up with facts. Since younger people dont see us in these situations often, how do you think we can teach younger Christians to handle this as we do?

(2) I believe in freedom for the believer through the priesthood of the believer. Therefore, any person opposing me is allowed to. I will do my best to convince them, but then it is up to God. My opponent answers to God, not me.

Possibly the most important fact to remember in any theological discussion.

(3) I have no rights. If I got my rights, I would be in Hell eternally. I do not have the right not to be insulted, I do not have the right to have everyone agree with me.

I have said this for years, becoming a Christian is volunteering to give up alot of rights guaranteed to us by being an American. I think this is the first step to becoming a selfless Christian, and the first step to being able to EDUCATE others when it comes to bible translational beliefs, and not CONVINCE them. I encourage you to expound on your thought here.

(4) I believe the Bible (in any version) teaches humility, gracious speech, gentleness and kindness to those in opposition. "Love your enemy."

Yes, I agree (of course) and I think its a difficult line to walk. On one hand, people like me feel very compelled to stand against false teaching so that others who do not have such attention to detail, or perhaps just arent as mature in their faith, are looked out for. I feel as a youth pastor, its my duty. What do you think about this? Where is the line drawn? When does it change from being a "false teaching" to being a "false teacher"?

I don't know if this answers you, but if it doesn't you might want to start a separate thread, and I'd be glad to meet you there

I dont mean to intrude upon your time, this kinda became longer than I thought. Answer to dont answer at your leisure. Thanks for your time!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Mine and your opinions on the matters aside, every problem came from people who held these beliefs stating categorically that everyone was bound to believe as they do, and if they didnt God would judge them.

This is the salient difference between a discussion and a fight.

The American Civil War had been in "discussion" phase for 40+ years (1820-1861), but when Lincoln proclaimed that the Union was NOT to be divided and, if attempted, he would raise an army and force unification . . we all know the bloody four years of fighting that followed.

Let us pray that the good "discussions" we see on the BB today will continue and that the "fight" mode (demanding unanimity instead of unity) by abandoned.

BTW, anyone else notice how GOOD the BVT discussions today are, contrasted to the past few weeks?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Good points!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
BTW, anyone else notice how GOOD the BVT discussions today are, contrasted to the past few weeks?

I think that may be due to the conspicuous absence of a couple of the worst offenders. Coincidence?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Yes, I agree (of course) and I think its a difficult line to walk. On one hand, people like me feel very compelled to stand against false teaching so that others who do not have such attention to detail, or perhaps just arent as mature in their faith, are looked out for. I feel as a youth pastor, its my duty. What do you think about this? Where is the line drawn? When does it change from being a "false teaching" to being a "false teacher"?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I don't know if this answers you, but if it doesn't you might want to start a separate thread, and I'd be glad to meet you there

I dont mean to intrude upon your time, this kinda became longer than I thought. Answer to dont answer at your leisure. Thanks for your time! </font>[/QUOTE]Too much for me to answer just now, DD--I have to start a busy day. I want to answer you more on the anger question, but just don't have time today. Besides, I'm working through a major case of culture shock. My wife just told me that at breakfast I had the last of my grits--and you can't just buy grits at the local sushi store!! We have to order them special through the "Foreign Buyers Club."

I do want to address one interesting point you bring up here, though.

I read an article recently that said that people are much less polite in e-mail than they are in person. I think that is also true for Internet forums. Therefore I try to act on the Internet and in e-mails just as I would if I met the person in "real life."

Having said that, I had not yet gotten around to thinking about the concept of false teachers on the Internet and how to handle them. I'll throw another word into the mix: heretic. Maybe we can use this thread to discuss at what point an opponent on the BV/T forum becomes a heretic or, even worse, a false teacher. And how do we handle the Biblical injunctions to rebuke and/or separate from such a one? The KJV word "railer" also comes to mind. There are a lot of railers on the Internet, and we are not to associate with railers, according to the Bible.

I'll be working this through my head and heart. Any comments?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Discussing: What do you think about that? Well, I think...

Debate: Here is why I believe... Here is why I believe...

Argument: Is not!!! What are you so stupid that you can't read two words?!?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Your point is also my point. At what juncture does the problem go from a "false teaching" to it simply being from a "false teacher"?

I think it comes when such a person refuses to allow their claim to be discussed. I feel ANY such action is the first sign of a false teacher.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Your point is also my point. At what juncture does the problem go from a "false teaching" to it simply being from a "false teacher"?

I think it comes when such a person refuses to allow their claim to be discussed. I feel ANY such action is the first sign of a false teacher.

Gotta run to the church now, but a quick answer. I believe that biblically speaking, a false teacher is far worse than simply a mistaken doctrine--though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by false teaching. At any rate, a false teacher/prophet is a wolf who draws the sheep away and destroys them. Mistaken (false?) teaching can confuse the sheep, but they may still be all right spiritually. So in my book, it is a big jump from false teaching to a false teacher, not just a line to be crossed.

Catch you later.

 

[mcdirector]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Mine and your opinions on the matters aside, every problem came from people who held these beliefs stating categorically that everyone was bound to believe as they do, and if they didnt God would judge them.

This is the salient difference between a discussion and a fight.
</font>[/QUOTE]IMHO, this is also smacks of legalism and seems to be where most of the rancor arises. Discussions are shut down when one person says, "I'm right! You're wrong, and God will judge you for your wrongness!"

Presenting a case with solid evidence (or even nicely worded misunderstandings) allows discussion to move forward.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Exactly, mc, this is where all matters of belief break down. I think all our beliefs would be able to coexist if we followed this example, because at least we would understand each other. As it is, I still to this day do not understand the real reason why some people believe somethings, because they never let it get that far.

 

[Ed Edwards]

There is no place to put this:
---------------------------------------
1Jo 2:23 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father.

1Jo 2:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.

Italics are in the paper KJV1611 Edition for:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also

Italics are NOT in my paper KJV1769 Edition.
Italics are in my paper KJV1873 Edition. The 'but' at the
head of the phrase is in brackets.
---------------------------------------

What dynamic is going on here?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Thanks for the discussion John. You are quite refreshing to discuss with for a "KJVer".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> First of all, I agree with you that there is righteous anger. But it had better be for the Lord and not because I was personally offended or frustrated.

Very very true. Being angry for a selfish reason is already a sin. I would like for you to think about this: Is being angry over a wrong done (such as the one we are discussing), but for a selfish reason, any less wrong than ignoring a wrong when one should speak up? I think you would agree in the negative, that both are wrong. Its a balance: we must stand against Christians who profess binding beliefs yet refuse to allow them to be challenged and discussed because even though you and I may have the firmness of mind and will to ignore it, some Christians dont. Example: There are only 2 issues that ever caused major problems for kids in my youth group: KJVO and calvanism. Mine and your opinions on the matters aside, every problem came from people who held these beliefs stating categorically that everyone was bound to believe as they do, and if they didnt God would judge them. How does this sound to a 13 year old girl who's been saved for 3 weeks? They werent trying to teach her, they were trying to INDOCTRINATE her, overpower her. I see the same things from over the top fundamentalist preachers who think if you tell someone they are going to hell enough times, they will accept Christ. I feel its dishonest as a Christian to engage in such tactics, and I feel anyone convinced by such methods will never truely believe said idea at all unless more honest discussion or research is takes place. This makes me angry for them, because they feel guilted into a belief, but they dont really BELIEVE it. You can DO something or SAY something because of COERSION, but it is impossible to BELIEVE something by such means. The only product is confusion.

Thoughts?

</font>[/QUOTE]I'm going to answer this in a somewhat roundabout way. In the matter of anger, I live by principles (as I'm sure you agree that we all should in all things). So, I have certain principles that rule how I get angry. In other words, I believe we should only get angry on purpose, never by emotion. Purposeful anger is righteous anger, but I believe that emotional anger is of the flesh.

Now to deal somewhat more directly with your paragraph, one of my principles is never to get angry with those under my authority except under certain extreme circumstances (to save a life, for example). The basis for this principle is that authority carries it's own ability to control people without anger.

One illustration of this is from doing a ride-along with my cop friend in Texas. When he pulled over someone, he never, ever got angry. He didn't have to. His very presence meant that the entire weight of the city was behind his authority. One lady did buck him and he came very close to arresting her, but he did not get angry. (This is a guy that once got kicked out of college for punching a teacher!) He said later, "If she had just reached out and touched me I could have arrested her!"

Because of this principle of not getting angry at those under my authority, while we were raising our son, I never, ever disciplined him in anger. I never get angry at my wife, because I am to love her as Christ loved the church. (Think THAT one over for a few decades!) I never get angry at my church folk--they are my flock. (Well, I probably got angry a couple of times at that schizophrenic girl we had in our church in Yokohama!)

There are cases where it might be right for me to get angry at a flock member, but that would only be to protect another member of the flock. As to how I would apply that in a youth group to protect the kids from false doctrine, I would think I would have to limit myself to the pastor's authority on that. I don't know your situation, but it would depend on the amount of authority the pastor gives you, and what disciplinary measures you are allowed to use. It seems to me that if you are allowed enough power in your disciplinary measures, anger should never be necessary!

Now to bring this to the area of Internet debate, unless we are monitors, we have no authority on our debate opponents, right? The monitors shouldn't have to get angry--"One more post like that and you are out!"--problem should be solved! So again, I'm wondering what purpose anger could possibly have on an Internet forum?

(1) On the one hand, the Biblical way to control an opponent's anger is, "a soft answer turneth away wrath." I actually teach this as a technique in my self defense classes.

(2) On the other hand, anger on my part only increases the anger of my opponent. Prov. 17:14--"The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with."

Now, I'll deal even more directly with your paragraph. Not having been there in your situation with the 13-year-old girl, I can't speak directly to it, but I can certainly understand your anger. I'm just not sure it was useful. For the life of me, I can't figure out what anger is useful for in 99 cases out of 100!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Very well stated! I wonder if you are willing to admit that certain personalities are much more able to never get angry than others. I feel my personality, being extremely justice driven, gets angry rather quickly when it comes to injustice.

I shall explain further: I never had a problem with one of MY youth trying to force such beliefs on others, it was always an adult or a youth from another church that they went to school with. Trust me, if it was coming from my own church, I would not stay there long.

I am one who is extremely patient with anyone who is trying. I have youth who are always causing problems, but they really are trying to grow up, they just had a rough upbringing, and are still learning how to relate with people and how to behave. Yet my patience runs really thin for some of my youth who are more mature, but only when doing things that bring harm to others, such as making fun of others in the group, or things of that nature. They know when it comes to treating each other like brothers and sisters, I am very demandind. I have learned to be very patient with things like talking in church, goofing around, and such because I learned such things are usually from boredom or not understanding whats going on. It seems to be working!

Back to the topic, I dont get angry at all false teaching. I know there are mormons out there, and if one comes to one of my youth, I dont get angry at all.

However, when a so called Christian starts trying to force someone to believe as they do, I think there is much more at stake than just one belief: its a way of life. I want my youth, and anyone who will ever be under my "authority", to be able to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling". They will never learn to do that if they dont learn from an early age how to figure things out, and lean on GOD for their doctrine.

That is how we raise young people who know what AND why they believe, and are able to share their faith. That is how they are strong enough to go off to college and not have to face a crisis of faith.

I think this is all the more important when it comes to bible translations. They need to know the FACTS about where their bible came from, and how it got to its present state. I think in most fundamental circles, they truely only want our youth to know the parts that lead them to believe as they do. I would rather someone disagree with me while having as many of the facts as I can give them, than to agree with me while I withold something I know is vital to the decision.

I want this to be the goal of all others who work with young people too. This is my ministry, I guess you could say.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
There is no place to put this:
---------------------------------------
1Jo 2:23 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father.

1Jo 2:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.

Italics are in the paper KJV1611 Edition for:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also

Italics are NOT in my paper KJV1769 Edition.
Italics are in my paper KJV1873 Edition. The 'but' at the
head of the phrase is in brackets.
---------------------------------------

What dynamic is going on here?

Put it SOMEWHERE ELSE, Ed. Not proper in this thread, but needs to be discussed. I look forward to you starting a thread - maybe just use the reference as a title - and getting some input. I was not familiar with this addition to God's Word.

 

[Deacon]

I could post this in any number of active threads.

I picked up a book in the cheap book section @ B+N that is very interesting.

How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot (1963).
Most enlightening are the numerous quotes from original sources.

Jerome in a letter to Damasus, his sponsor, wrote:

You urge me to revise the Old Latin version….The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous….Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein.

Who would ever guess that 1600 years would go by and we still argue about it.

Rob

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Deacon,

I just finished reading Lightfoot this semester! It was a great read, but I had the updated version. I think it had a bit more info in it, so I encourage you to at worst, stop by a bookstore and read the extra 4 chapters. It's one of the most informative books on the subject.

 

[thjplgvp]

John and DD as I listen / read this discussion on anger it brought to mind a book I purchased after reading about it on this BB.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, what made me think of it while reading this thread DD said "When one puts forth a belief in such ways, using guilt and misleading evidence, such as many do in the bible translation discussion, I feel for every false statement made on this board, 10 more are made to real people in an attempt to convince them."

Mcdirector also stated, "IMHO, this is also smacks of legalism and seems to be where most of the rancor arises. Discussions are shut down when one person says, "I'm right! You're wrong, and God will judge you for your wrongness!"

Early in the book page 23, Johnson makes this statement, "Likewise those in spiritual positions of authority can violate our trust. It's possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or or doesn't "behave" spiritually the way you want them to. When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a persons standing as a Christian-- to gratify you, your position or your beliefs while at the same time weakening or harming another-- that is spiritual abuse."

What is interesting to me is that I see myself in the same light I sometimes place others, denying their liberty that I might be right. Truly an interesting book.

BTW John I appreciate your usage of Prov. 17:14 I had never seen that used in the context of anger. Thank you

thjplgvp

 

[J.D.]

Hello JofJ and others. JofJ you know how that I recently PM'd you to apologize for my anger during an exchange, so as a veteran of forum over-zeal let me speak.

In that case with JofJ, because I'm "speaking" to someone I've never met in person and do not really know, I became suspicious of JofJ's motives for trying to get me to post on another forum than the one I was on. His continued effort I took to be provocative on his part. After a while, I saw that was not the case and apologized.

So one of the problems here is that we are virtually strangers, especially for folks like me that haven't been here that long.

Also, I find that people are offended by my posts many times, when if I had said the same thing in person, would not have had that effect due to my body language, that I do not intend to be offensive, but that I do sometimes want to provoke a lively conversation.

And sometimes I provoke on purpose because I want to know that christians really believe what they say they believe, and if they're not sure about something, they should just say so. I like direct language and some people interpret that to be mean.

The bible version topic is a hot one, and will continue to be so. I was almost banned from a blog site because I revealed my AKJVO, byzantian preferred, alexadria-avoiding stand. I was shocked at the reaction - it was as if I grew horns! And I wasn't even debating the topic - I just mentioned as a BTW.

I'm very familiar with the work of Peter Ruckman and the strife he's sown amongst the brethren, so I know it cuts both ways - the rancor that is.

I love the interaction on this board and I look forward to more of it, but I hope it stays civil. Now I'll go back to my regularly scheduled debate on the theology forum.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Very well stated! I wonder if you are willing to admit that certain personalities are much more able to never get angry than others. I feel my personality, being extremely justice driven, gets angry rather quickly when it comes to injustice.

I'll agree here. We all have our besetting sins, and anger doesn't seem to be mine. I've had a laid back personality ever since childhood, when I realized that getting angry at my brother only got me beat up!! That is, until I joined the wrestling team in 9th grade, but by then it was too late, I'd already been conditioned by my brother not to get angry! Thanks, Bro!

 

[mcdirector]

Lightfoot's book is very good. I had one on the shelf in the library and when I started reading here, I bought two more. He has a very nice overview.

Greatsite.com also has a nice overview of the history of the English speaking Bible. English Bible Timeline