How pointless is debate?

[Darias]

Over the course of the past few months, I have noticed several of my Christian brethren say things like this:

. . . there's no point in debating theology with unbelievers.

[...]

[If] you found the Bible to be true and accurate, then we would have a foundation on which to begin. If you do not, then any theological debate we might have would be a fruitless dialogue that would result in absolutely nothing in the end but two people's opinion who aren't any closer to agreeing with each other then when they first began.

[...]

As for the offer to debate, I'll pass. We cannot debate theology if you do not consider the Bible to be true. . . . I don't see the point.
_____

• ( "How do we know a sinner when we see one?" Page 29, Post 282 )

. . . I have about 15 hours into a reply to your post above, but I have decided to scrap it. I hate doing this, because I feel that in it I very strongly and adequately demonstrated that my position is Biblically consistent. However, I have said before that I do not debate theology with people who do not believe the Bible. . . .

[...]

I see no point in giving you any more of my time, at least regarding Biblical matters. . . . debating anything Biblical with you is certainly pointless.
_____

• ( "Once saved, always saved?" Page 20, Post 199 )

I refuse to debate the Bible and theology with unsaved people. It's pointless.
_____

• ( "Prayer is a waste." Page 3, Post 28 )

-----

This attitude concerns me. Two of these posts were addressed to me, a believer -- and while I take no offense at the responses in general, it does make me wonder.

If Christians are unwilling to debate other Christians on important matters of belief, how do they expect to convince non-believers to believe in their world-view?

And second, if Christians are unwilling to discuss the Bible, doctrine, or theology with non-believers, how do they expect anyone to join the faith? Are Christians just hoping people will accept Christ for fear of hell, or out of ignorance of the teachings of the faith?

Third, is this seemingly collective pessimism towards debate the result of the inability to actually support a strong argument, or is it the result of an unwillingness to exchange ideas and admit the possibility of being wrong? Or is it cased by something else?

I'd really like to know. If no one is willing to give an answer, than may I ask, "Why are you here?" After all, this is a forum called Debating Christianity and Religion.

[otseng]

Otseng, please lock the thread and restore AmazingJesusIs to his group, at your discretion of course.

It's not worth hearing it -- not for you or me...

My apologies to everyone for creating this thread; it has been a huge waste of everyone's time.

If I do, someone will probably open up a new thread to discuss this. So, unfortunately the cat is out of the bag.

[Darias]

If I do, someone will probably open up a new thread to discuss this. So, unfortunately the cat is out of the bag.

... or box!

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[WinePusher]

I created this thread because I wanted to know why Christians refused to debate with me because I have a commonly held view of the Bible which they disagree with -- to the point of saying that it is a waste of time to debate with me -- as if I'm not worthy of discussion.

It has nothing to do with "close-mindedness" -- I have no idea where you got that from.

What does being "close minded" mean? It's a refusal to open your mind to other ideas and have your beliefs challenged, isn't it? It correlates with what this thread is about.

I think AmazingJesusIs' point is a good one.

Do you realize that he called me a false Christian and that I give a bad name for others because I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy and because I believe in an Omnibenevolent God. DO YOU NOT believe the same? You believe that Evolution is a fact, which is contrary to the scriptures (sure the Bible doesn't mention evolution, but it does stress the literal creation of kinds.) Do you believe that God is love? Of course you do.

Yet you didn't speak up when I was assaulted with ad-hominems of the legitimacy of my personal faith in God (even though opinion which warranted such such condemnation is the same as yours). Instead you say that it was right. You go to the point of saying it's not even a personal attack.

I'll take a guess as to why.

It's because I'm a liberal, and I've disagreed with you in the past on a range of issues. That's the only reason why.

First of all, I don't have any duty to defend anyone else besides myself. Second of all, calling you a false Christian is wrong but criticizing your beliefs was the point of his post which I consider legitimate. Sorry, but my Christianity has been called into question numerous times because I am Catholic, is that ad-hominem? Someone calling me a false Christian because they have issues with my Catholic beliefs is distasteful rhetoric and reflects poorly on the character of the person issuing that accusation, but it is a valid criticism. Thirdly, our views are not completely synonymous. I laid out a rebuttal to you in the first page of this post but failed to get a reply. The example you cite about evolution is not valid, nor is the one about an "omnibenevolent God" valid.

he is saying that if a person is going to pass judgement and criticize fundamentalist aspects of Christianity and the way they approach debate, then it's also legitimate to point out that person's shortcomings in relation to Christianity.

Just because I debate strongly does not mean that I use personal attacks. I strive not to attack the person. Though I let loose on doctrines and ideas, I never question the legitimacy of someone elses' faith. I never call them names. I never condemn them to hell. I never accuse them of leading others to hell, and I never ever justify such dickery with Holy scripture.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

Why then do you think that it is perfectly okay to resort to using ad-hominems when one cannot defend their opinions or positions, in reference to doctrine, etc.? It's never okay to do that.

Our definition of what constitutes an ad hominem differs. The literal surface of what AmazingJesus said is distasteful and is ad hominem, but his point is accurate. You say you reject biblical inerrancy yet you have not expounded on what this means. Whats the Bible, is there any truth in it, do you believe Jesus was actually God and actually did work miracles here on earth or was he just crazy?

[Goose]

But then also stating the belief that someone does not seem to be ABLE to understand a simple rule, as you did, is equally a rule violation as well then. Surely you see this. Otherwise you are merely picking things out of the air as it suites you personally.

I've already apologized if it's construed as a negative statement towards him.

And your apology is accepted I’m sure (at least it is by me). But that doesn’t fix the issue of inconsistently applying the rules in regards to making inferences about other members.

Okay, but you should have received a formal warning too then, right? Does this mean you will restore AmazingJesusIs back to the BK group then (assuming he wants back in)?

I will let AmazingJesusIs speak for himself.

I don't actually think that is necessary. Since you removed him from the BK group without speaking to him maybe you should restore him without speaking to him? After all, you did acknowledge the right thing to have done was to give him a formal warning. This implies you did the wrong thing by removing him from the BK group.

And why are you so adamant on speaking for him?

Red Herring. But I’ll bite anyway. It gives me an opportunity to see how a Christian that judges other Christians with a rather high, somewhat self righteous, and non-Biblical personal standard of conduct reacts when that same judgmental Christian is called out and judged by the same standard by which he judges others. This is especially important to me because it gives me some insight as to how much credibility the Christian doing the judging should have with me. Consider it my litmus test.

[Slopeshoulder]

Let me ask you this, do you think that him stating that Darias is not a true Christian would be a violation of the forum rules or not?

No, I don't think that's a violation of the forum rules, but then again I'm WinePusher. I think it reflects poorly on the character of him, as the virture of refrainment from judging others has been ignored on his part, but it isn't equivalent to an attack or personal statement. Consider the nature of this thread, is it not assuming the close mindedness of fundamentalist biblicists? I think AmazingJesusIs' point is a good one, he is saying that if a person is going to pass judgement and criticize fundamentalist aspects of Christianity and the way they approach debate, then it's also legitimate to point out that person's shortcomings in relation to Christianity. It shouldn't be a one way street where liberals get to ridicule conservative christians and their debate tactics but liberal christians are off limits from any types of criticism.

Can you point to an example where a liberal denied the label Christian to any fundamentalist who claimed it for themselves? I think you may have painted with a broad brush and made an unsubstantiated claim.
Yes, fundies and libs disagree with, disparage and even disrespect each other's verisons of Christianity, but it seems to me pretty darn straightforward that it it NOT OK to cross a line into saying someone isn't a christian, a legitimate christian, or a true Christian. THAT is the civility line right there. I think that is the issue and the crux of Otseng's intervention. Moreover, failure to see that after umpteen explanations seems to me either proving his point about poor debate, intelligence, belligerence or whatever, or stirring the pot for no apparent contructive reason (ahem, Goose, sorry thaz how i seez it ).

And Darias, chill my friend. It's a good thread. It raises real issues.It was hijacked. Not your fault.

Can we get back on track?

[otseng]

Can you point to an example where a liberal denied the label Christian to any fundamentalist who claimed it for themselves? I think you may have painted with a broad brush and made an unsubstantiated claim.
Yes, fundies and libs disagree with, disparage and even disrespect each other's verisons of Christianity, but it seems to me pretty darn straightforward that it it NOT OK to cross a line into saying someone isn't a christian, a legitimate christian, or a true Christian. THAT is the civility line right there. I think that is the issue and the crux of Otseng's intervention. Moreover, failure to see that after umpteen explanations seems to me either proving his point about poor debate, intelligence, belligerence or whatever, or stirring the pot for no apparent contructive reason (ahem, Goose, sorry thaz how i seez it ).

I'm glad someone else can agree with me on this.

[WinePusher]

Can you point to an example where a liberal denied the label Christian to any fundamentalist who claimed it for themselves?

No, but consider what you're asking. I'll be going off of subjective definitions: Fundamentalists are those who believe most if not the entirety of Christianity, Liberals are those who believe a moderate amount of Christian tenants and tend to challenge some christian doctrinal beliefs. So the questions refutes itself. Anyways, I've already said that I don't support Christians judging other Christians as non-Christians. But what I have seen are liberals who deny the label of rationality and critical thinking to fundamentalists.

Yes, fundies and libs disagree with, disparage and even disrespect each other's verisons of Christianity, but it seems to me pretty darn straightforward that it it NOT OK to cross a line into saying someone isn't a christian, a legitimate christian, or a true Christian.

What if someone claimed they were a Christian and yet did not believe Jesus Christ was our Lord and Savior who rose from the dead, the prequisite belief for any Christians (IMO) I think it's fair game to call out that person.

THAT is the civility line right there. I think that is the issue and the crux of Otseng's intervention. Moreover, failure to see that after umpteen explanations seems to me either proving his point about poor debate, intelligence, belligerence or whatever, or stirring the pot for no apparent contructive reason (ahem, Goose, sorry thaz how i seez it ).

I don't believe you're a Christian (even though you claim to be one) because of reasons X, Y and Z. That was the crux of AmazingJesus' post.

I believe Fundamentalist Christians are wrong and misrepresent Christianity (even though they claim to be "true" Christians) for reasons X, Y and Z. That's the crux of liberal Christianity. Why is the former prohibited but the latter permissable?

[otseng]

But that doesn’t fix the issue of inconsistently applying the rules in regards to making inferences about other members.

What inference am I making? If you think I'm saying he's less than dull, I've already corrected that false allegation. The only inference made is that he broke a rule. And me judging him for breaking a rule is not itself a violation of the rules.

Since you removed him from the BK group without speaking to him maybe you should restore him without speaking to him?

No, I gave a warning before I removed him. And obviously he read it since he quoted what I wrote.

After all, you did acknowledge the right thing to have done was to give him a formal warning. This implies you did the wrong thing by removing him from the BK group.

Actually, I was being lenient towards him by issuing a general warning first.

It gives me an opportunity to see how a Christian that judges other Christians with a rather high, somewhat self righteous, and non-Biblical personal standard of conduct reacts when that same judgmental Christian is called out and judged by the same standard by which he judges others.

High, self-righteous attitude? I will avoid commenting on that one.

[Goose]

Can you point to an example where a liberal denied the label Christian to any fundamentalist who claimed it for themselves? I think you may have painted with a broad brush and made an unsubstantiated claim.
Yes, fundies and libs disagree with, disparage and even disrespect each other's verisons of Christianity, but it seems to me pretty darn straightforward that it it NOT OK to cross a line into saying someone isn't a christian, a legitimate christian, or a true Christian. THAT is the civility line right there. I think that is the issue and the crux of Otseng's intervention. Moreover, failure to see that after umpteen explanations seems to me either proving his point about poor debate, intelligence, belligerence or whatever, or stirring the pot for no apparent contructive reason (ahem, Goose, sorry thaz how i seez it ).

I'm glad someone else can agree with me on this.

Yeah, but do agree with the part where Slopeshoulder subtly implies that I am a poor debater and not intelligent? That I am belligerent and stir the pot for no apparent reason?

[otseng]

I don't believe you're a Christian (even though you claim to be one) because of reasons X, Y and Z. That was the crux of AmazingJesus' post.

I believe Fundamentalist Christians are wrong and misrepresent Christianity (even though they claim to be "true" Christians) for reasons X, Y and Z. That's the crux of liberal Christianity. Why is the former prohibited but the latter permissable?

The difference is attacking a person versus attacking a belief. All of us can attack each others' belief. But, nobody is free to attack a person. Basically, when something is prefaced with "you", like "You can't be a Christian", then that gets personal. What one can do is say that another's belief is not consistent with traditional orthodoxy and show why that is so.