|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 27, 2008 10:10:24 GMT -5
For truth emerges from the conflict of debate. For without controversy, great is the mystery of God. 'nother words, if you don't argue, you can't figure God out, right? (just another demonstration of how easily scripture can be interpreted multiple ways, leading to different beliefs, and lively discussion, with little or no chance at resolution).
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 27, 2008 10:17:16 GMT -5
For truth emerges from the conflict of debate. For without controversy, great is the mystery of God. 'nother words, if you don't argue, you can't figure God out, right? (just another demonstration of how easily scripture can be interpreted multiple ways, leading to different beliefs, and lively discussion, with little or no chance at resolution). To clarify: Those are not my words. I was quoting GIT from the original post on this subject; my response followed. I have modified my post to (hopefully) make it more clear. My original post said that while I enjoyed lively debate and hearing other people's opinions, that this had not been true for me. For me, I've found the best source of truth to be on my knees before God. Too often I've found that (as the hymn says) man's wisdom leads into a maze. With respect. peace, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by jh62unlogged on Feb 27, 2008 10:26:17 GMT -5
Actually, if a person were to debate an issue on the opposite side of what they usually would, I think it would be very beneficial to them. They may actually do some research and discover why others believe differently, and it might be quite enlightening to them. As Gloryintruth mentioned earlier, a true debate is not about arguing and proving who's right or wrong, it's about presenting both views.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 27, 2008 10:35:04 GMT -5
oops! with respect backatcha fs, I was just latching onto any old comment so I could wiggle my verse into the conversation. It's funny to me...because I heard a worker once say that that verse was used by the church of Christ to support a love for debate.
My personal opinion is that theological debate is quite fun, but it has little or nothing to do with God...who lives in the heart, not the head.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 27, 2008 11:00:44 GMT -5
Thank you, DC. I have found that sometimes some good comes from debating and discussing different subjects just to get a variety of opinions and points of view.... but ultimately we have to work out truth before God--alone and in the private place of prayer--so that we know what is right and what is wrong for our own lives. I think that knowledge and wisdom aren't the same thing. Sometimes it seems we can get so overwhelmed with knowledge that we leave off the deeper matters of the heart. At least that has happened to me before. peace, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 27, 2008 13:34:08 GMT -5
Apparently the current debate is about "debate" I believe the scriptural position is that we are to be ready and able to "defend our faith". For me personally, I don't view this as an academic exercise, but of defending my positions of faith. IMO, problems immediately arise when people assume that theological positions are academic (as Diet Coke says theological debate is quite fun, but it has little or nothing to do with God...who lives in the heart, not the head.). This is frankly not correct. Theology is very simply the process of examining issues that you allow to ultimately become convictions of the heart. My belief in Christ's deity, for example, is a conviction of heart - not an issue of academics, or head knowledge. I would suggest that no one will be able to demonstrate from scripture or history an instance of Jesus, any of the Apostles, the leaders of the reformation, etal debating a position contrary to their own convictions for the purposes of entertainment or academic advancement. They were defending their faith, not debating gun control. Does this mean that I am against considering an opposing view? Absolutely not. I do everything I can to seek out and understand opposing views, and I try as best as I can to consider them respectfully, even as I form my own convictions....or compare them to convictions presently held. Does this mean I'm not willing to "debate"? I am absolutely willing to defend what I believe, but haven't the time or interest to defend a position I don't actually hold. Please understand that my comments were framed as a response to Gene's suggestion that I debate GiT. This is the way I feel about it. If anyone disagrees that's fine. If GiT disagrees, I'd suggest that he be the first to defend homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 27, 2008 14:29:05 GMT -5
Homosexuality, defended by GIT...THAT would be a fun debate!
Zorro, you know me well, but to others I will explain my comment: My "great struggle" with Christianity is reconciling the god of the bible with the god of personal experience. I have found no way to tie the two together; what I experience of the Spirit simply does not fit in a box with one religion, so I've no reason to demand that the practical "god" that lives among us is the same one as described in the bible.
Therefore, theological debate, by wrestling with the scriptures, may as well be discussing another god altogether. The god of the head is not necessarily the God of the heart. I will capitalize the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2008 14:47:41 GMT -5
I'm game. I'll take the contra side on homosexuality if Glory will take the pro side...
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 27, 2008 14:51:44 GMT -5
Not fair, Gene. You already believe the scriptures are anti-gay, and will only accomplish displaying the fallability of scripture. But I would still pay money to watch the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 27, 2008 15:06:30 GMT -5
But I would still pay money to watch the debate. I'll be holding the money dc. Feel free to send it to me. It needs to be in a plain envelope. Of course if you see me in person we should use the ol' hearty handshake trick.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 27, 2008 15:08:16 GMT -5
I am with you and Jason.I have an idea for the first debate: GiT and Nathan could debate predestination and/or perseverance of the saints. Then the second debate could be GiT and Bert debating the Trinity. Then the third debate could be GiT and Diet Coke debating the infallibility of scripture. Zorro, up until your post, I didn't see much point in Jason Landless' request. But for what you just described, I'd sit back and watch, quite interested. Great idea, Zorro.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Feb 27, 2008 17:14:10 GMT -5
I could not in good conscience defend any position with which I disagree. I am somewhat old fashioned in my perspective, because I hold that "beliefs have consequences" - and need to be dealt with seriously, soberly, and carefully. I would be striken with sorrow to be instrumental in persuading someone to a viewpoint that I think is heretical, damnable or dangerous - because I would have furthered the cause of what I percieve to be ungodly.
My passion is in defending what is true. As attractive as Armininism may be, and as much as I might admire John Wesley and other proponents, I cannot see in Armininism the same theological rigour that I can see in Calvinism. (Unfortunately, good Arminian theological writing is hard to find on the Internet, and most of it seems to be a kind of negation of Calvinism). Therefore, in good conscience I could not defend that position; I could not lend my time and thought and strength to furthering a belief that I have come to see as a semi-Pelagian position.
I would gladly defend the Doctrine of the Trinity, Predestination, Total Depravity and any of the solas. I would gladly - most gladly - fight a war of words against the current trend that views the Bible as a self-help manual, or as a kind of confetti from which one may choose the brightest theological colours in which to adorn the Christmas tree of heterodox belief (how's that for a metaphor!). But I refuse, categorically, to defend homosexuality at any level. In my eyes, to defend what God declares sinful and abominable is for me to sink to a level described by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. I refuse categorically to defend anything that is unorthodox.
For I am a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, whom I love. I will not lend my redeemed powers to the service of anything that finds his disapproval. As Jesus demonstrated all his life - beliefs are serious. What we hold in our heads is what we hold in our hearts - and these things come forth and are manifested in our spirit and life. Beliefs have consequences. And hence, should ever be handled with care.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 27, 2008 17:24:55 GMT -5
aw, dang
|
|
|
Post by blindman on Feb 27, 2008 17:43:56 GMT -5
the workers?
the workers who deny the trinity?
would you fight a war against them?
you know jason, many of the doctrines you believe in are in direct opposition to what is taught in the fellowship meetings by the workers.
|
|
|
Post by glory in truth on Feb 27, 2008 17:50:56 GMT -5
In my eyes, to defend what God declares sinful and abominable is for me to sink to a level described by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. I refuse categorically to defend anything that is unorthodox. Yes, you are quite special. Oh, do you eat pork?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 27, 2008 18:06:32 GMT -5
I would suggest that no one will be able to demonstrate from scripture or history an instance of Jesus, any of the Apostles, the leaders of the reformation, etal debating a position contrary to their own convictions for the purposes of entertainment or academic advancement. They were defending their faith, not debating gun control. Does this mean that I am against considering an opposing view? Absolutely not. I do everything I can to seek out and understand opposing views, and I try as best as I can to consider them respectfully, even as I form my own convictions....or compare them to convictions presently held. Does this mean I'm not willing to "debate"? I am absolutely willing to defend what I believe, but haven't the time or interest to defend a position I don't actually hold. OK let's do it. There are plenty of good ideas here to try. We can start and after the first debate make any necessary changes. I think the suggestion for a debate over one week is good. We seem agreed that people will debate positions that form part of their personal convictions. The rules put forward by 133t can be modified to allow as many responses as we can fit in a week. Otherwise, each debater gets an opening and closing post. After posting, that person must wait for the response before posting again. Rules could be simple. Pro and Con each get opening, two responses, then a conclusion. Pro always goes first. 1) Pro topic open 2) Con topic open 3) Pro first response 4) Con first response 5) Pro second response 6) Con second response 7) Pro close 8) Con close No new arguments can be introduced in closes. There will be an opportunity at the end for the rest of us (who will spend the week enjoying popcorn/tea & scones) to add our views. Then we'll find a new topic and new debaters. To kick things off, would Jason and Zorro agree to take the floor first? Gene's topic sounds good: "That God's church on earth is not a physical fellowship with naturally defined boundaries but a spiritual body of redeemed believers in the Lord Jesus Christ"? To be fair, Jason and Zorro would need to agree the wording of the topic. There's probably another topic lurking in something Zorro and diet coke have said, on the purpose of all this: IMO, problems immediately arise when people assume that theological positions are academic (as Diet Coke says theological debate is quite fun, but it has little or nothing to do with God...who lives in the heart, not the head.). This is frankly not correct. Theology is very simply the process of examining issues that you allow to ultimately become convictions of the heart. My belief in Christ's deity, for example, is a conviction of heart - not an issue of academics, or head knowledge. Possible topic for diet coke and somebody to tackle: "That theological debate is quite fun but has little or nothing to do with God because God lives in the heart, our minds matter little to Him"Plus all the other suggestions for topics, such as two people from similar backgrounds, both in or both out of the F&W fellowship, debating opposing beliefs (eg. the triune God or the infallibility of scripture). I will try to set up the board later tonight, if Jason and Zorro will agree to start and agree on the words to debate.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 27, 2008 18:29:31 GMT -5
My name came up, I'd like to decline. I don't have any experience with formal debate. I'm more interested in simple, rational, coherent conversation - something along the lines of an intellectual jam session.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 27, 2008 19:16:40 GMT -5
Eph 5:25 says "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". From this verse the only definition that I will defend is:
The church is the community of all true believers for all time.
My position is that it is both invisible, yet visible. Universal and local.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 27, 2008 19:29:22 GMT -5
Eph 5:25 says "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". From this verse the only definition that I will defend is: The church is the community of all true believers for all time.My position is that it is both invisible, yet visible. Universal and local. I suspect you and Jason won't have much to debate then, but we'll wait and see. Which might prove an excellent way of reaching agreement on a lot of things, put up some wording to debate and try to find someone who will take the contrary view. Or on the other hand, we will spend so much time debating the wording of the topic that it's not worth doing. Jesse, point noted.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 27, 2008 19:39:25 GMT -5
I suspect you and Jason won't have much to debate thenLOL. The "debatable" issue is right smack dab in the middle of my preferred defintion
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 27, 2008 19:44:24 GMT -5
There will be an opportunity at the end for the rest of us (who will spend the week enjoying popcorn/tea & scones) to add our views. ~~Off to boil water for tea and find a recipe for scones.~~ freespirit
|
|
|
Post by scone lover on Feb 27, 2008 19:48:08 GMT -5
I LOVE SCONES ! Am I invited?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 27, 2008 23:18:20 GMT -5
I've had another idea. We could set up the debating board and leave it open for anybody to post a statement and invite either a specific person or anyone in general to debate it with them.
If the challenge isn't accepted, we simply note it and move on. If it is, we conduct the debate here according to the rules (which include copious quantities of freespirit's scones with lashings of jam and cream).
|
|
Rob O
Junior Member
"I am the bearer of the sacred flame."
Posts: 158
|
Post by Rob O on Feb 27, 2008 23:24:11 GMT -5
Another suggestion - each debate should have two threads. One for the actual debate and a second one for discussion. It would be more interesting to have the discussion thread running concurrent with the debate. I would also suggest that the debaters are not permitted to post in the discussion thread until the debate is formally over. My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 28, 2008 0:10:57 GMT -5
I've had another idea. We could set up the debating board and leave it open for anybody to post a statement and invite either a specific person or anyone in general to debate it with them. If the challenge isn't accepted, we simply note it and move on. If it is, we conduct the debate here according to the rules (which include copious quantities of freespirit's scones with lashings of jam and cream). ~~Very happy to be serving scones and tea.~~ I know Jason likes his tea unsweetened; I like milk in mine. Anyone else have a special kind they prefer? Also, I would like to reiterate that I LOVE this suggestion of Gene's: I think this is an excellent idea. I love it when Glory actually presents a well-reasoned and researched argument, and even better when the response to Glory is something other than "you're stoopid and use too many big words and that makes me angry and therefore I don't like you". ... and am very much looking forward to hearing polite, lively and respectful debate and sharing of viewpoints minus the attacks on a person's character or vocabulary. *Holding a tray* freespirit ETA: I LOVE SCONES ! Am I invited? yes, of course. But...this is my first time to make scones. I hope they turn out okay.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 28, 2008 0:30:21 GMT -5
~~Very happy to be serving scones and tea.~~ I know Jason likes his tea unsweetened; I like milk in mine. Anyone else have a special kind they prefer?
Could you perhaps also have some good ol' coffee and some of those big gooey cinnamon rolls? I'm kind of a health nut and prefer to be sure to wolf down the pastries whenever possible..... Especially when someone else brings them..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 28, 2008 0:35:22 GMT -5
Scott, I'll be happy to make coffee for you. Black? Cream? Sugar? freespirit
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 28, 2008 1:05:47 GMT -5
Hey THANKS, A little cream would be just fine..... We'll sit back and watch the debate and talk about the good ol' days. Like just last week I had a good day.... I think.... Scott
|
|