Let's TALK about debate!

[All Becomes New]

@Studyman,

I know it looks like we disagree on the face of it from what you have written, but we really don't. I feel the meaning of what I wrote here was not understood as I was not explicit about what it was that corrects what we know having been revealed to us which is the word of God.

So it is not as though we argue out of reason alone, but more precisely, we should make our points of Spiritual things based on what God has made known to us and where we do not know we listen and inquire in our hearts what is the truth so that this too can be some manner God may reveal something to us.

It is in the listening and inquiring in our hearts which I mean quite literally and not figuratively.

 

[BobRyan]

And of course, the position is that debate, as we have come to know it, is almost unrivalled in dogmas and rules such as discussing this and that ...

The first example I might give is probably more well seen upon the second. Nevertheless, the Bible is first and foremost the principle we should all set as the standard for one to make a point lest it look like one does not know what he or she is talking about. ...

Yes, I first wish to show you by example the exemplary behavior of the Thessalonians and their Good Works in which it appears many were saved. And by this I mean that their Character was one of learning, and, more specifically, taking the message of Christ with joyful hearts, not bickering among them, but rejoicing in the Truth.
...

Now, the principle message I wish to convey here is that these men and women were not prone to debate or delineate much over the errors as they might be perceived in Paul's teaching, but were astute in listening like good children.

I agree that arguing for the sake of arguing is not helpful.


Since you bring up the Thessalonians... lets look at how they got the Gospel in the first place.

Acts 17
Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he visited them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a significant number of the leading women.

5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the marketplace, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and they attacked the house of Jason and were seeking to bring them out to the people....


Paul in Berea
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore, many of them believed, along with a significant number of prominent Greek women and men.

Clearly it was not a case of "we will accept whatever you say Paul" nor even "and if we don't agree we will just go home and mull it over rather than arguing"

Some accepted but some were outright opposing.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not think you have understood what I have written. What I quoted here is precisely what I am against as it makes the mind a contraption which is not in the Spirit of Christ, but rather an exercise in the mechanisation of the mind. When you rob yourself of living in the truth of your own perspective, you violate your own innocence.

I do understand where you are coming from, however, if two honest people respectful of each other and of their respective beliefs engage in a proper civilized debate, both parties can benefit due to the dialogue. This principle of healthy dialogue goes back to Socrates, and indeed we see our Lord and His Apostles engage in respectful debates which resulted in sublime edification.

On the other hand, I would be the first to agree that there is nothing to be gained by a heated, angry flamewar type debate of the sort which is all too common on the Internet. That kind of angry polemical back-and-forth is mean, nasty and counterproductive in most cases.

There is one exception to that, and that is that if someone is spreading falsehoods, it is of benefit to third parties to set the record straight while seeking to avoid, as much as possible, any kind of inflammatory back-and-forth with the person who is promulgating the inaccurate information.

 

[Studyman]

This is where I have a fundamental difference of opinion.

The scripture says of itself that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

What Letter kills?

Ex. 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Does this Letter kill me? Or is it the following Letter that kills me?

Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

It seems we should understand what the God of the Bible means by this statement from Paul. I don't believe you do.

Now while my journey has included rebuilding my life and world view around the reading of scripture, it is His living Word within that brings what I read to life and gives me faith.
Faith does not come from reading scripture - it comes from hearing His living Word. If this were not so, then Paul would have recognised Messiah for who He was and not assisted the murder of His followers. I say this because we know that few would have read scripture more than Paul in his day.

I fundamentally disagree with much of your religious philosophy because It is contrary to much of what the Bible actually teaches. I have pointed this out to you before, but it is difficult for men, especially religious men, to accept they may be in error. And I don't want to argue, for arguments sake. However, I am compelled to answer your reply, So I will further Paul's own words in the hopes that you might reconsider your philosophy.

First, Paul himself says this.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So if Paul, before his conversion, was reading and believing the Word of God, he would have not persecuted the true Church of God, he would have been "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." like Zacharias and Elizabeth did.

Second, you are preaching that Paul, while persecuting those who were obedient to God, read the Holy Scriptures "More than most". But when I ask Paul and read his own words, he says the opposite.

Acts 22: I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

And again;

Gal. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

And what was the tradition of his fathers?

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

And Jesus Himself, if a man can accept His Word's.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

So Carl, you are promoting a religious philosophy that Paul read the Scriptures "more than most" and yet HE still persecuted the true Church of God, implying that the Scriptures mean nothing, even implying they "KILL". But Paul himself contradicts your preaching here. He did not learn to persecute the Church of God by "reading the Holy Scriptures". He listened to "other voices" by his own admission. He followed ancient religious traditions of "MEN" by His own admission.

Had He been like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, the wise men, who "became wise unto Salvation" from the Law and Prophets that Paul said were written specifically for us, then Paul would have known who Jesus was when HE came, just like Zacharias did.

So a foundation of your religious philosophy is based on the belief that Paul learned to persecute the true church of God either because of or while he read the Holy Scriptures "more than most". But Paul's word himself proves this teaching as untrue. Are you teaching that God's Holy Spirit led you to preach something about Paul that was untrue?

This is a vital point that many miss and in fact there are many on CF that don't even recognise that the Holy Spirit within speaks at all !! They attribute faith to the words on the page and not His living Word within.

If everybody got this and experienced it, there would be a lot less arguement on CF...

It's not that I don't believe the Holy Spirit exists in some people. It's just that I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads men to believe and teach falsehoods about the Word of God.

Peter said when arguing with the false preachers of his time;

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

So then, if a person obeys God, then God grants them His Holy Spirit, that is what Peter says. Most religious men didn't believe this in Peter's time.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

It is my experience that most religious men don't believe it today either, As Jesus Prophesied.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yet, are you not debating so as not to debate? Sounds contradictory to me, brother.

“For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” (Acts of the Apostles 18:28) (BLB).

In fact, many of Jesus' discussions with the Pharisees could be considered like a debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus, and He did not walk away, but He refuted them with Scripture. This is a form of debate. Now, if we debate with no love for the other person, then there is a problem in my book. We have to take a step back and realize that we have to love the person and yet hate the false belief. If we hate false beliefs, then we will argue against them because we love the truth of God's Word.

Yes, and the Jews wanted to kill Paul because of that. And I don't believe Jesus debated the pharisees as much as he just declared truth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, and the Jews wanted to kill Paul because of that. And I don't believe Jesus debated the pharisees as much as he just declared truth.

From my perspective, you appear to be debating with me now. So you are not upholding your own standard, friend. For how do you define debating and why do you feel it is wrong? Can you make a biblical case for it?

 

[All Becomes New]

From my perspective, you appear to be debating with me now. So you are not upholding your own standard, friend. For how do you define debating and why do you feel it is wrong? Can you make a biblical case for it?

I will, once again, refer to what Augustine said regarding this matter. I do not aim to debate as it is inasmuch a procedure that one might think to "outwit" the opposition, but if you find what I say in error, perhaps instead of insisting that I am debating that you perhaps instead bring light what I say in a manner of a question to ask so as to put to the test what I say rather than assuming my motive.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I will, once again, refer to what Augustine said regarding this matter. I do not aim to debate as it is inasmuch a procedure that one might think to "outwit" the opposition, but if you find what I say in error, perhaps instead of insisting that I am debating that you perhaps instead bring light what I say in a manner of a question to ask so as to put to the test what I say rather than assuming my motive.

Debate:
(Definition):

• to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
• to dispute or disagree about:

Source:
Definition of debate | Dictionary.com

 

[All Becomes New]

Debate:
(Definition):

• to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
• to dispute or disagree about:

Source:
Definition of debate | Dictionary.com

I don't agree with that definition. To argue is altogether different than discussion.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What Letter kills?

Ex. 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Does this Letter kill me? Or is it the following Letter that kills me?

Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

It seems we should understand what the God of the Bible means by this statement from Paul. I don't believe you do.



I fundamentally disagree with much of your religious philosophy because It is contrary to much of what the Bible actually teaches. I have pointed this out to you before, but it is difficult for men, especially religious men, to accept they may be in error. And I don't want to argue, for arguments sake. However, I am compelled to answer your reply, So I will further Paul's own words in the hopes that you might reconsider your philosophy.

First, Paul himself says this.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So if Paul, before his conversion, was reading and believing the Word of God, he would have not persecuted the true Church of God, he would have been "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." like Zacharias and Elizabeth did.

Second, you are preaching that Paul, while persecuting those who were obedient to God, read the Holy Scriptures "More than most". But when I ask Paul and read his own words, he says the opposite.

Acts 22: I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

And again;

Gal. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

And what was the tradition of his fathers?

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

And Jesus Himself, if a man can accept His Word's.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

So Carl, you are promoting a religious philosophy that Paul read the Scriptures "more than most" and yet HE still persecuted the true Church of God, implying that the Scriptures mean nothing, even implying they "KILL". But Paul himself contradicts your preaching here. He did not learn to persecute the Church of God by "reading the Holy Scriptures". He listened to "other voices" by his own admission. He followed ancient religious traditions of "MEN" by His own admission.

Had He been like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, the wise men, who "became wise unto Salvation" from the Law and Prophets that Paul said were written specifically for us, then Paul would have known who Jesus was when HE came, just like Zacharias did.

So a foundation of your religious philosophy is based on the belief that Paul learned to persecute the true church of God either because of or while he read the Holy Scriptures "more than most". But Paul's word himself proves this teaching as untrue. Are you teaching that God's Holy Spirit led you to preach something about Paul that was untrue?



It's not that I don't believe the Holy Spirit exists in some people. It's just that I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads men to believe and teach falsehoods about the Word of God.

Peter said when arguing with the false preachers of his time;

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

So then, if a person obeys God, then God grants them His Holy Spirit, that is what Peter says. Most religious men didn't believe this in Peter's time.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

It is my experience that most religious men don't believe it today either, As Jesus Prophesied.

First off please refrain from avoiding the issues I raise by making condescending comments and personal put downs.

You know little about me - if you want to know more, read my testimony thread here.

Jesus's Ministry

I quoted 2 Cor 3: as follows...

…5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim that anything comes from us, but our competence comes from God. 6 And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at the face of Moses because of its fleeting glory,…

In this passage 'the letter' refers to the Law - Paul and the Pharisees were experts in the Law but didn't recognise the Author of the Law when He appeared to them face to face.
These were experts in knowledge of scripture, but they didn't know Him.

And Satan during the temptation - his weapon of choice was the Scripture. As I have said many times the Scripture without the Spirit is potentially deadly.

And so it is today - here on CF - a constant clash of interpretations indicates a lack of hearing from the Author - the Holy Spirit.
Instead a clash of spirits demanding allegiance to human thinking or worse.

I repeat what I said before and invite comment on the points raised...

"Now while my journey has included rebuilding my life and world view around the reading of scripture, it is His living Word within that brings what I read to life and gives me faith.

Faith does not come from reading scripture - it comes from hearing His living Word. If this were not so, then Paul would have recognised Messiah for who He was, and not assisted the murder of His followers. I say this because we know that few would have read scripture more than Paul in his day.

This is a vital point that many miss and in fact there are many on CF that don't even recognise that the Holy Spirit within speaks at all !! They attribute faith to the words on the page and not His living Word within."

 

[Studyman]

In this passage 'the letter' refers to the Law - Paul and the Pharisees were experts in the Law but didn't recognise the Author of the Law when He appeared to them face to face.
These were experts in knowledge of scripture, but they didn't know Him.

I just posted scriptures where Paul Himself tells us what he was an expert in. HE says "the traditions of his fathers" "Jews religion". He said where his religion came from "at the feet of Gameliel" not Moses. I also posted the Christ's own Words, as well as others, which teach that the "Jews Religion" and the "tradition of the fathers" were not from God or God's Law. Jesus said they didn't even believe Moses. He said their father was satan.

My disagreement with your religious philosophy is because you ignore these Biblical Truths and your doctrines omit them. You don't have to, you could agree with Jesus on this matter, but you don't as your own posts clearly show. That is the reason for our fundamental disagreement.

And Satan during the temptation - his weapon of choice was the Scripture. As I have said many times the Scripture without the Spirit is potentially deadly.

Yes, you say many things. But I should follow the Christ of the Bible and HIS Teaching.

2 Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How would I know which spirit is influencing me? If it is the Spirit of Christ, then I would agree with the Word's of the Christ which are Spirit and Life. If I find a belief which is contrary to HIS Word's, then it is me who is corrected, not the Scripture.

If Paul was an expert in the Law and Prophets, he would have been a "man of God" wise unto Salvation, like Zacharias was. You know, Zacharias that I have posted several times and you have refused to acknowledge.

Jesus said the Pharisees were not "Experts" in God's Laws. He said they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men, not God. HE said they didn't even believe Moses.

They "omitted" the Weightier matters of the law. HE said Moses gave them the Law and they didn't keep it.

So this is why we fundamentally disagree. I believe what Jesus and Paul say about the Pharisees, you don't, therefore we disagree.

 

[Fervent]

Argument and debate can be exceedingly helpful in personal development. Certainly aiming to argue or debate for its own sake has limited value, but engaging in civil debates is one of the surest ways to grow as a person. Without outside input we are more likely to become self-righteous and it can be quite humbling to encounter someone with a deep knowledge to challenge our surest beliefs. Does this mean every topic should be debated? No, there are some topics that simply cannot be apprehended by debate. But without combatitive discussions to sharpen us we are likely to become spoiled and useless. Just as discipline is necessary for growth, so is conflict.

 

[All Becomes New]

Argument and debate can be exceedingly helpful in personal development. Certainly aiming to argue or debate for its own sake has limited value, but engaging in civil debates is one of the surest ways to grow as a person. Without outside input we are more likely to become self-righteous and it can be quite humbling to encounter someone with a deep knowledge to challenge our surest beliefs. Does this mean every topic should be debated? No, there are some topics that simply cannot be apprehended by debate. But without combatitive discussions to sharpen us we are likely to become spoiled and useless. Just as discipline is necessary for growth, so is conflict.

The problem, as I see it, is that insofar as debate helps "personal development" it still assumes you don't actually change you mind, but just try and come up with better arguments. So it is not as though people are open to changing their opinion in debates in the course of personal development, but that the bias remains in tact and it is only the arguments that change. If you don't see a problem with this, then anything further I might say will not convince you. And let me be the first to say that I believe people are inherently biased, but debate as we have come to know it, doesn't help relinquish these biases, but more so strengthens them. If one is to change their minds, then I would put that in the category of discussion and not debate.

 

[Fervent]

The problem, as I see it, is that insofar as debate helps "personal development" it still assumes you don't actually change you mind, but just try and come up with better arguments. So it is not as though people are open to changing their opinion in debates in the course of personal development, but that the bias remains in tact and it is only the arguments that change. If you don't see a problem with this, then anything further I might say will not convince you. And let me be the first to say that I believe people are inherently biased, but debate as we have come to know it, doesn't help relinquish these biases, but more so strengthens them. If one is to change their minds, then I would put that in the category of discussion and not debate.

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Certainly, convictions are difficult to change and often result in seeking better arguments if the presumption is strong enough but in my experience I have definitely had my mind changed on a variety of topics through argumentation. There are healthy and unhealthy ways to debate, and unhealthy and healthy ways of handling what happens in a debate and reflection after the fact.

I am one who is naturally inclined to argue, always have been, but I rarely argue from a place of emotion. This tendency has led me to arguing a range of topics from things I have been passionate about to things I only mildly found interesting. The more passionately involved I am the more difficult to change my mind, but even on some topics I have been very passionate about I have been swayed to alternate positions through debate.

Even where the position dooesn't change debate can help refine a person's thinking and clarify issues they didn't even recognize they had, especially when there is cognitive dissonance caused by holding certain beliefs together.

From my perspective it seems the real issue is that most don't reflect after debates and honestly re-assess their positions and instead engage in one-upsmanship and tactics to prove others wrong which is not all debate entails but is instead an unhealthy manner of handling debate.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Certainly, convictions are difficult to change and often result in seeking better arguments if the presumption is strong enough but in my experience I have definitely had my mind changed on a variety of topics through argumentation. There are healthy and unhealthy ways to debate, and unhealthy and healthy ways of handling what happens in a debate and reflection after the fact.

I am one who is naturally inclined to argue, always have been, but I rarely argue from a place of emotion. This tendency has led me to arguing a range of topics from things I have been passionate about to things I only mildly found interesting. The more passionately involved I am the more difficult to change my mind, but even on some topics I have been very passionate about I have been swayed to alternate positions through debate.

Even where the position dooesn't change debate can help refine a person's thinking and clarify issues they didn't even recognize they had, especially when there is cognitive dissonance caused by holding certain beliefs together.

From my perspective it seems the real issue is that most don't reflect after debates and honestly re-assess their positions and instead engage in one-upsmanship and tactics to prove others wrong which is not all debate entails but is instead an unhealthy manner of handling debate.

The problem is in the "one-upsmaship" in the moment of the debate. It's altogether different to be able to see clearly IN the debate as opposed to after the debate is over because if you only come to the realization that you were wrong afterwords after all is said and done that this is a demonstration that you were in sin while the debate was going on. And if you find yourself changing you mind mid debate, then that is when you are discussing things and not debating them.

I didn't share this until now, but I categorize debate differently than @Bible Highlighter because I go by the Webster-Dictionary definition and not the Dictionary.com definition. The difference is clearly seen in that debate, used as a noun here is about argumentation and that is what I am against because as we see from your PoV, no matter if one is passionate in their disagreement or not, you can still be in sin if you are not able to view things with an open mind in the moment of a discussion. Else, what I have said is correct that the attitude is wrong with debate in all cases.

 

[Fervent]

The problem is in the "one-upsmaship" in the moment of the debate. It's altogether different to be able to see clearly IN the debate as opposed to after the debate is over because if you only come to the realization that you were wrong afterwords after all is said and done that this is a demonstration that you were in sin while the debate was going on.

I agree one-upsmanship during debates can be a problem, but I'm not sure the rest follows. Information processing often occurs after information gathering not while the information is being gathered. It's very rare that there is a single piece of information that immediately implodes a case, nor am I sure there is an ethical/moral/theological wrongness to learning through reflection on what went on. Sometimes you've got to leave the forest to recognize its breadth. Abuse does not preclude proper use.

 

[All Becomes New]

I agree one-upsmanship during debates can be a problem, but I'm not sure the rest follows. Information processing often occurs after information gathering not while the information is being gathered. It's very rare that there is a single piece of information that immediately implodes a case, nor am I sure there is an ethical/moral/theological wrongness to learning through reflection on what went on. Sometimes you've got to leave the forest to recognize its breadth. Abuse does not preclude proper use.

I hear you are saying, "Just because some people abuse the use of the debate does not mean debate is necessarily bad." To that point I would only say if you can demonstrate that it is not at the point that one does change their mind if this changes things from a difference of debate to discussion? More to the point, I would say at the point one changes their mind it goes from debate to discussion. The notable thing here is a sense of empathy for your fellow dialoguies. I don't say to change one's mind afterwards is a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing and as much an act of repentance of sorts, but I would only ask WHY you cannot do that in the moment? That is where I would argue there are certain sentiments and biases and mechanisms in the mind held before the fact of a changing of the mind. I would illustrate this as it is written by Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as rI have been fully known. 13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." and in so saying, isn't Paul saying to hold love in the highest esteem and not discourse as to "win" the argument, and to not have that mindset, but rather to look to your brother in love and not look at your brother as an argument piece?

 

[Studyman]

I'm not so sure that's entirely true. Certainly, convictions are difficult to change and often result in seeking better arguments if the presumption is strong enough but in my experience I have definitely had my mind changed on a variety of topics through argumentation. There are healthy and unhealthy ways to debate, and unhealthy and healthy ways of handling what happens in a debate and reflection after the fact.

I am one who is naturally inclined to argue, always have been, but I rarely argue from a place of emotion. This tendency has led me to arguing a range of topics from things I have been passionate about to things I only mildly found interesting. The more passionately involved I am the more difficult to change my mind, but even on some topics I have been very passionate about I have been swayed to alternate positions through debate.

Even where the position dooesn't change debate can help refine a person's thinking and clarify issues they didn't even recognize they had, especially when there is cognitive dissonance caused by holding certain beliefs together.

From my perspective it seems the real issue is that most don't reflect after debates and honestly re-assess their positions and instead engage in one-upsmanship and tactics to prove others wrong which is not all debate entails but is instead an unhealthy manner of handling debate.

This is so true. Many religious men who spend time posting are not interested in examining scripture, rather, they are here to promote a religious philosophy taught by one of the many differing religious Sects we are born into.

Some of the greatest things revealed to me has been through the examination of scripture with someone who disagreed with or challenged my understanding. The problem as I see it, is that "many" just don't really believe the scriptures, and surely not the warning of deception found therein. As if the warnings are always for that other guy, not them. Therefore they can't fathom the idea that they could be teaching a falsehood, or believing a falsehood.

I see it as what happened to Eve. She was convinced first off that she was already saved. That "she shall surely not die" even though God told her she would.

So then, if I'm convinced that I'm all set, "eternally secure", then the warnings from the Christ can't be for me.

Jesus said those who "Doeth Truth" comes to His Word which is Spirit and life, for the very purpose of exposing darkness, lies, falsehoods, which may exist in their mind. But others avoid the examination of HIS Inspired Word "because" they might expose the darkness, lies, deceptions in their minds.

It boils down to what is most precious to us. Our religion and religious philosophy? Or God's Kingdom and HIS Righteousness.

We should be honest with ourselves as Is. 58 teaches "And not hide our self from our own Flesh."

Paul as well.

Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

There is only one way for us to do this in my understanding.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Great discussion, great points.

 

[Studyman]

I agree one-upsmanship during debates can be a problem, but I'm not sure the rest follows. Information processing often occurs after information gathering not while the information is being gathered. It's very rare that there is a single piece of information that immediately implodes a case, nor am I sure there is an ethical/moral/theological wrongness to learning through reflection on what went on. Sometimes you've got to leave the forest to recognize its breadth. Abuse does not preclude proper use.

And if this is the case, then an honest man will post again later, admitting that he was in error, and thanking the the person publicly for sharing a perspective he had not seen, or for exposing a falsehood that he didn't know was in his mind.

A rare occurrence on these forums to be sure. But one that edifies both parties. A Good thing in my view.

 

[All Becomes New]

Clearly it was not a case of "we will accept whatever you say Paul" nor even "and if we don't agree we will just go home and mull it over rather than arguing"

Some accepted but some were outright opposing.

Such is the Gospel that some will not believe, but for those who do, will be granted eternal life for all those who believe.