-
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!
what happened to the calvinism / arminianism debate forum?
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
All that will happen is that the debates will transfer down here.
If personal attacks, unethical debate tactics were the result of closing the c/a forum, you would have to close the majority of the forums on this site! It all boils down to moderators. the c/a site had only two, with one hardly ever on the forum. I think there needs to be additional moderators not only on that site, but throughout the BB. I would volunteer if it would reopen the forum.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Webdog: //I would volunteer if it would reopen the forum.//
Sorry, Brother Webdog, nobody is qualified to be
a moderator if they volunteer to do it.
Moderating has the worse job features of the following jobs:
1. cat hearder
2. spear catcher
Obviously then, only draftees
become moderators.
Sorry, Brother Webdog, nobody is qualified to be
a moderator if they volunteer to do it.
Moderating has the worse job features of the following jobs:
1. cat hearder
2. spear catcher
Obviously then, only draftees
become moderators.And not financially able to move to "Canada".Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Webdog: //I would volunteer if it would reopen the forum.//
Sorry, Brother Webdog, nobody is qualified to be
a moderator if they volunteer to do it.
Moderating has the worse job features of the following jobs:
1. cat hearder
2. spear catcher
Obviously then, only draftees
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This might be a good time to summarize the various debate tactics used there.
#1. The "gaming" approach that has no intention of actually doing/learning/studying anything - it just wants to "chew toy" around with those that oppose - using jokes, and dodges when needed - not much actual exegesis of anything hard. Hoping to collect a few "zingers".
This model is very insecure - it resorts to dirty tricks misdirection whenever it sees its own flaws being exposed.
#2. The "me too" approach. Those looking for someone to post their same opinion so that they can post in favor of that and add to it - arguments that only someone ALREADY sharing their own POV could ever accepts.
Always looking for "zingers" here as well.
When these guys "gets stuck" they always "assume" that the only reason is that they just do not know enough ways out of the problem -- because "surely we can't be wrong can we?"
#3. The "Everybody would agree with me if they just read the Bible" approach. This one is actually a pretty good one and almost everybody starts out this way.
#4. The "I just want to narrow this down to the exact points where we differ so that they are clear" - approach. I like this one because it shows someone is actually thinking.
This one usually collects some very helpful zingers.
#5. The "I would gladly change if I found even ONE serious person on the other side willing to engage in honest discussion and exegete "details" in the opposing texts" - model.
This one gets the best zingers of all since it can evaluate both sides equally.
I like that one the best.
In Christ,
Bob
#1. The "gaming" approach that has no intention of actually doing/learning/studying anything - it just wants to "chew toy" around with those that oppose - using jokes, and dodges when needed - not much actual exegesis of anything hard. Hoping to collect a few "zingers".
This model is very insecure - it resorts to dirty tricks misdirection whenever it sees its own flaws being exposed.
#2. The "me too" approach. Those looking for someone to post their same opinion so that they can post in favor of that and add to it - arguments that only someone ALREADY sharing their own POV could ever accepts.
Always looking for "zingers" here as well.
When these guys "gets stuck" they always "assume" that the only reason is that they just do not know enough ways out of the problem -- because "surely we can't be wrong can we?"
#3. The "Everybody would agree with me if they just read the Bible" approach. This one is actually a pretty good one and almost everybody starts out this way.
#4. The "I just want to narrow this down to the exact points where we differ so that they are clear" - approach. I like this one because it shows someone is actually thinking.
This one usually collects some very helpful zingers.
#5. The "I would gladly change if I found even ONE serious person on the other side willing to engage in honest discussion and exegete "details" in the opposing texts" - model.
This one gets the best zingers of all since it can evaluate both sides equally.
I like that one the best.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
On #5 - I meant of course that the "serious person" would be making a compelling case from scripture for their view.
In any case - I readily admit that few people of any persuasion are actually open at any given moment to a compelling argument from a POV that they don't happen to share. But now and then you will find someone in that frame of mind.
In Christ,
Bob
In any case - I readily admit that few people of any persuasion are actually open at any given moment to a compelling argument from a POV that they don't happen to share. But now and then you will find someone in that frame of mind.
In Christ,
Bob
Reminds me of the old Looney Toones cartoon that ends with Bugs Bunny (or another character) plugging his ears and hitting a bomb with a hammer, then writing "dud" across the side--while saying "Oh, well, its a job......while it lasts."Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Webdog: //I would volunteer if it would reopen the forum.//
Sorry, Brother Webdog, nobody is qualified to be
a moderator if they volunteer to do it.
Moderating has the worse job features of the following jobs:
1. cat hearder
2. spear catcher
Obviously then, only draftees
As DHK said earlier, it is closed for now. It MAY be temporary, or it MAY not....I doubt anybody but God knows right now.
These are very tough decisions to make and it hurts the moderators to either ban people or turn-off threads. But, when un-Christ-like attitudes start showing in the posts, it becomes easier to close them.
This should be kept in mind with all debate threads. Sticking to the rules, which really means, sticking to the subject, and debating it and not a person's intentions or salvation, etc. will keep them open; if not, they are subject to closure.
Let's all work hard in all of the threads to keep them open by following the rules. Do I hear an "AMEN"?
Acumenical
Member
Amen from me. I'm still new here but have lurked for quite a while. Although I'm happy that Baptists have a history of independent thinking, I've noticed that sometimes that attitude results in a defiant, self-centered mentality. "I"m right, so rules don't apply to me." It wouldn't hurt if each of us prayed for wisdom and restraint before posting in any forum. Oue brothers and sisters deserve respect, even if we believe they are in error concerning some theological point.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Amen!Originally posted by Phillip:
Let's all work hard in all of the threads to keep them open by following the rules. Do I hear an "AMEN"?
In my list of "debate styles" given above - I point out how human nature often approaches these boards -- on the best of days.
But there is a bigger - more foundational principle at work and I define it like this "When logic fails ad hominem prevails".
The noblest ideal is that saints of different persuasion come together and share what they have learned - and then each one learns from the other.
But just as the human sinful nature kicked in for the "one true church" of Christ's day - so it does today. The very nation that was to accept and proclaim the Messiah rejected the light that came.
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not". John 1.
Yet enough DID stop and listen and learn - to start the NT church.
But invariably the "price paid" whenever a forum is open for people to share different views is the "ad hominem" acid rain that falls whenever logic fails.
Yet it is precisely when "logic fails" when our evidence runs out and our logic runs aground -- it is at that point that we can also be open to "a better alternative" than the one that just failed. So now and then - you see someone move from square one to square two.
In Christ,
Bob