Why do So Many Threads Read Like a Term Paper?

[Zaac]

All of these citations make every topic look like a Kate Turabian fanfest. How about more Bible quotes and a lot fewer quotes from elsewhere?

 

[cantata]

All of these citations make every topic look like a Kate Turabian fanfest. How about more Bible quotes and a lot fewer quotes from elsewhere?

Because when people are making claims to the truth, independent verification is important. That’s why.

 

[MariaRegina]

When topics in Society discuss Christian morals, beliefs, and practices, then we can really only use the Holy Bible, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers, and theologians, isn't that true?

Remember the movie series Oh God? When non-Christians demand scientific proof of God, this is not possible. Belief in God requires faith -- a revealed faith (The Holy Bible) and an enlightened faith and lived faith (The Saints and the Holy Church Fathers). When these sources are denied to Christians by non-believers, then it becomes pointless to argue, because we argue in vain.

True theologians pray and experience the Living God. That is why St. John the Evangelist is called St. John the Theologian.

Other "theologians" can study God, but in their attempt to study God, they can lose the faith when they try to break God into pieces. One cannot do that. God is way above that. Only those who experience God through prayer, through His marvelous creation, and through the Holy Spirit can truly know God.

So, in the end, the most definitive statements defending Christianity are from the Holy Bible, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the Church Fathers.

Back to the OP: So, yes, we should use the writings of experts and scientists to make our points when discussing non-Christian issues that do not involve faith and morals.
However, even the writings of experts involve educated opinions, nothing more.

We have scientific laws - mathematical principles and the laws of physics.

However, facts can be very subjective. Look at witnesses at an accident. Facts will vary depending on how we perceive reality.

 

[cantata]

Other "theologians" can study God, but in their attempt to study God, they can lose the faith when they try to break God into pieces. One cannot do that. God is way above that. Only those who experience God through prayer, through His marvelous creation, and through the Holy Spirit can truly know God.

Anti-intellectualism alive and well, I see.

We have scientific laws - mathematical principles and the laws of physics.

However, facts can be very subjective. Look at witnesses at an accident. Facts will vary depending on how we perceive reality.

No, facts are never subjective. People’s recollections and perceptions of facts are subjective, but the facts themselves are simply true, by virtue of being facts.

 

[Zaac]

When topics in Society discuss Christian morals, beliefs, and practices, then we can really only use the Holy Bible

And right here is my point.

And you said:

When these sources are denied to Christians by non-believers, then it becomes pointless to argue, because we argue in vain.

Again, I just really can't see any need to cite manly sources "to convince" someone that God is Who He says He is when they reject what HE says as truth.

It's as though we are doing the cause of Christ a disservice by citing everything but His truth when it is His truth that sets men free.

 

[MariaRegina]

I have a Masters in Linguistics.

I see the value of arguing philosophical or linguistic points, but the Holy Faith cannot be argued in the same way as ordinary science or subjects in humanity or psychology. Faith is not perceived through the senses. That is the difference.

 

[yatcup]

but the Holy Faith cannot be argued in the same way as ordinary science or subjects in humanity or psychology.

I am not so certain about this.

 

[Zaac]

I have a Masters in Linguistics.

I see the value of arguing philosophical or linguistic points,

In absolute agreement.

but the Holy Faith cannot be argued in the same way as ordinary science or subjects in humanity or psychology. Faith is not perceived through the senses. That is the difference.

I guess it's this part that I don't get. I keep reading some of these threads and wonder how do they go from giving a defense of the faith to an all out Cite fest of one scientist, doctor, lawyer, professor, etc,. said this as opposed to what God's word says?

 

[jayem]

I haven't noticed much citing of references in the E & M forum. These discussions are mainly personal opinions. But references are important when posters make statements of fact. Which happens all the time in the Politics forums, and more often than not, these alleged facts prove to be opinions, rumors, allegations, or outright fabrications. It's not being pedantic. It's a mark of intellectual rigor, when a poster backs up his statements with verifiable references.

 

[Zaac]

I am not so certain about this.

But it is the truth. Most nonBelievers will dismiss God's given truth because they feel that finite-minded scientist know more about creation than the Creator.

What do you do with that other than press on in Christ?

 

[Zaac]

I haven't noticed much citing of references in the E & M forum. These discussions are mainly personal opinions. But references are important when posters make statements of fact. Which happens all the time in the Politics forums, and more often than not, these alleged facts prove to be opinions, rumors, allegations, or outright fabrications. It's not being pedantic. It's a mark of intellectual rigor, when a poster backs up his statements with verifiable references.

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned "take it to the Cross" type person who just doesn't see a need in verifying opinions. Why not just quote God's word?

If an article is going to be cited, do we have to have an entire paragraph or ten cited?

 

[MariaRegina]

I guess it's this part that I don't get. I keep reading some of these threads and wonder how do they go from giving a defense of the faith to an all out Cite fest of one scientist, doctor, lawyer, professor, etc,. said this as opposed to what God's word says?

This is where Christians must be very careful. I have known young Christian zealots who have tried to convert atheists and who have ended up deconverting and renouncing Christ. In their zealous pride, they have suffered a mighty fall.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Space Trilogy? I honestly believe that it is a must read for Christians today, besides it is a great read. Once I had opened the books, I could not put them down.

Out of the Silent Planet (book #1) and That Hideous Strength (book #3) are fairly easy and fascinating reads, but Lewis' Perelandra (book #2) is a deeply philosophical and theological work. Yet, in order to understand That Hideous Strength, it is necessary to have a firm understanding of the logical and theological reasoning behind Perelandra.

Even though The Space Trilogy is considered to be High Fantasy Science Fiction, it has many truths in it. However, if you read The Space Trilogy, you can see how a person can intelligently argue for God and Christian morality. Perelandra may take several readings (along with scripture comparisons) to appreciate the fine points which Lewis makes.

Remember that Lewis left the Christian faith of his early childhood to become an atheist. If you read Lewis' The Problem of Pain, you will understand part of the reason behind his conversion back to Christianity and why pain played such an important part.

You will also find that these books contain hidden treasures and will become powerful tool in evangelizing the world.

Happy reading!

 

[morningstar2651]

It's actually really simple. When people want their words to be taken seriously, they take care with what they write and they support their statements best they can.
Toulmin's argument model

Personally, I haven't noticed many five paragraph essays.

 

[yatcup]

Most nonBelievers will dismiss God's given truth because they feel that finite-minded scientist know more about creation than the Creator.

This generalization is unfair and probably incorrect. In fact, I think I disagree completely.

The reason for the citations, probably, is simply because history and humans have accomplished a few things (they could definitely accomplish more). But there is no sense re-inventing the wheel all the time. Sometimes it is just plain good common sense to stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and instead of going back to square-one, moving forward.

By making citations, we are sometimes able to press forward, just as you say, using our (let us say) "god-given attributes of reasoning and understanding."

It is wrong, indeed, when people accept argumentation based solely on undue admiration of someone else's authority. It is always best to examine what is said rather than who said it.

 

[Belk]

But it is the truth. Most nonBelievers will dismiss God's given truth because they feel that finite-minded scientist know more about creation than the Creator.

What do you do with that other than press on in Christ?

No, most non-believers dismiss "God's given truth" because they do not believe in God. Would think that would be rather tautologically self evident.

 

[yatcup]

Belk: only in the case where non-believer = atheist.

 

[MariaRegina]

No, most non-believers dismiss "God's given truth" because they do not believe in God. Would think that would be rather tautologically self evident.

Exactly, and that is why a Christian should not bother arguing. It is pointless and harmful too.

However, many atheists, like C.S. Lewis were converted back to Christianity when they saw good examples of godly lives. His friends in the Inklings nourished his faith.

 

[Belk]

Belk: only in the case where non-believer = atheist.

No, I think it works in all cases. (I'm using capital G God in the christian sense.)

 

[Bombila]

But it is the truth. Most nonBelievers will dismiss God's given truth because they feel that finite-minded scientist know more about creation than the Creator.

What do you do with that other than press on in Christ?

Rather, we are also skeptical of the finite-mindedness of theists with whom we are conversing.

In matters on which scripture presents a clear opinion, the theist is welcome to do as you suggest: cite scripture, say that is what you believe God means - press on in Christ.

However, often a theist will quote scripture out of context or without themselves understanding what is probably meant by that particular quote, and scripture can be difficult to understand at best: witness 34,000+ Christian denominations, all based on differences in interpretation.

Who is right? How do they back up their claim of being right? Does it stand?

Scientists don't study all of creation at once, just bits of it, so that the larger puzzles are piece by piece solved. We live in the finite, though you may believe we also live in the infinite.

 

[Belk]

Exactly, and that is why a Christian should not bother arguing. It is pointless and harmful too.

However, many atheists, like C.S. Lewis were converted back to Christianity when they saw good examples of godly lives. His friends in the Inklings nourished his faith.

Actually he was converted back to Christianity after an all night conversation with his friend and colleague J.R.R. Tolkien. (Yeah, so I am a geek, what is your point ) So it seems to me that it likely depends on the quality of the argument and likely knowing what the non-believer will find persuasive. As such most internet forums are not likely to be conducive as it is hard to know your target audience that well.