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.

[fewwillfindit]

Since you took the liberty to start a post regarding some of my comments, I should respond. Look Darias. What I find to be pointless is debating theology with someone who doesn't regard the Bible as true. Any debate that will ensue will be nothing but opinion. The very foundational starting point of theology is the Bible, yet you disregard most of it.

Theology is developed from the pages of Scripture. You do not believe Scripture, for the most part. Thus how can we have a fruitful debate? I seriously couldn't care less about discussing philosophy, and that's all it is when Scripture becomes relegated to nothing more than a collection of stories with some good morals thrown in and a bit of history tossed in for good measure.

To me the Bible is God-breathed. That means that Paul's writings are as authoritative as those of Moses or Isaiah, yet you disparage Paul every chance you get. Just today you said that it is possible that Jesus was schizophrenic! Yet that part is missing from my reply in the quote above.

Jesus was exactly what the Scriptures record that He claimed to be. Period. Any Christian who would even entertain the idea that He was schizophrenic is not a person that I am going to debate Scripture with. If you don't like this, then you can pray to your schizophrenic messiah about it.

Do you understand what I am saying? Am I being clear enough?

[Darias]

My point is there are many Christians not nearly as liberal as I, who do not believe in Biblical infallibility/inerrancy.

If Christians are unwilling to debate with other believers about critical issues regarding the faith, how are Christians to convince non-believers to join the faith?

Are we just hoping that non-believers will accept Christ for fear of hell? Are we betting on the ignorance and gullibility of new believers to accept any and all doctrine we decide to give them?

I personally view such attitudes as insulting the intelligence of people. I don't see how Christianity is to grow or even survive if we cannot discuss, support, or defend our beliefs, let alone convince others of them.

What's the point of surrounding yourselves with like-minded individuals who don't question or examine or put their own beliefs to the test? A doctrine that cannot withstand the questioning of others is not worth holding onto.

If a person believes in a doctrine that says 'the sky is green,' and surrounds himself with like-minded individuals who unquestionably support him in his assumption -- what good is that? If he cannot defend his doctrine that the sky is green against the arguments of a "blue-skyer," then what good is his doctrinal belief?

If you don't want to debate with me personally, that's fine -- I take no offense -- but good luck convincing anyone else who isn't already convinced of your point of view, let alone believes in God.

[fewwillfindit]

My point is there are many Christians not nearly as liberal as I, who do not believe in Biblical infallibility/inerrancy.

If Christians are unwilling to debate with other believers about critical issues regarding the faith, how are Christians to convince non-believers to join the faith?

I don't believe it is our job to convince unbelievers to become Christian. It is our job to preach the Gospel. It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict and convince.

Are we just hoping that non-believers will accept Christ for fear of hell? Are we betting on the ignorance and gullibility of new believers to accept any and all doctrine we decide to give them?

I personally view such attitudes as insulting the intelligence of people. I don't see how Christianity is to grow or even survive if we cannot discuss, support, or defend our beliefs, let alone convince others of them.

Ignorance? Gullibility? Certainly not. Non-believers will be convinced by God when they hear the Gospel. I can discuss, support and defend my beliefs, but I will say this: If defending our beliefs entails tossing out vast portions of Scripture to make the message more palatable to the unregenerate mind and make it conform to our sensibilities, then the converts we will be winning will be false converts, and we will be filling the pews with unbelievers who think they are saved and are not, and that is a great disservice to them.

The Gospel is the Gospel, warts and all, and those who have ears to hear will hear. They will be compelled to enter the Kingdom of God, not because the message appealed to their intellect, but because it convicts them of their sin, drives them to their knees in repentance and transforms their hearts. That is a job that no man can do, it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

What's the point of surrounding yourselves with like-minded individuals who don't question or examine or put their own beliefs to the test? A doctrine that cannot withstand the questioning of others is not worth holding onto.

A doctrine that cannot withstand the questioning of believers is not worth holding on to. A doctrine that cannot be understood by an unregenerate mind and heart cannot be understood no matter how clever the argument. This is why you do not see me arguing theology with non-theists. How many avowed Atheists have you seen come to Christ on this forum? They are not here to hear our clever debates. They are here to preach their own gospel. Their understanding is darkened and their eyes are closed to the Truth. Some of them know the Bible better than many Christians on this forum, so it isn't that they haven't heard the truth. They have been exposed to the Truth over and over, so they cannot plead ignorance.

I have, however, witnessed Christians become less and less Biblically based the more they debate with non-theists and liberal Christians. That is a tragedy. These are lopsided results, and are the fruit of leaning to their own understanding rather than acknowledging God.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,

and do not lean on your own understanding.

In all your ways acknowledge him,

and he will make straight your paths.

Be not wise in your own eyes;

fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.

It will be healing to your flesh

and refreshment to your bones.

I am not here to convince anyone to believe in Christ. I also am not here to preach, as that is not prudent in debate. I am primarily here to defend error when I see it, and to debate various aspects of theology with believers. That would be believers who draw their beliefs from the Bible, not people who create their own Christianity from reason and science. I also jump in in C&A whenever I see a passage of Scripture being misrepresented.

[WinePusher]

I agree with fewwillfindit. How can you debate theology with a person who rejects the primary authority and source of the theology? The point is, I'm am not a literalist nor do I read the Bible as Fundamentalist schools of thought do, but I accept it as infallible in the areas of doctrine, dogma and theology. It's not a science text nor is it a complete history text, it's an infallible theological text.

I also share the sentiment with the people mentioned in the topic. The style of debate which some atheists engage in on this board would be laughed off stage if it were invoked in a university of public setting. I've noticed that some only ask questions, which is not debate. In a productive discussion, you're supposed to get two people exchanging ideas and alternatives and arguing that their case and ideas are better than the others persons. We don't always get that from some of the atheists on this board. Jester summed up the situation quite nicely in this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6&start=10

I'd say that this is one of the main reasons why theists don't hang around this site longer. It's definitely a big reason why I'm contemplating leaving. I don't care that some people out there don't agree with me on what constitutes evidence for God's existence. I feel that its there, and I'm tired of being asked to prove it to the incredulous.
If, however, those same incredulous people want to defend a position that succeeds where they say theism fails, I'm all ears. I'll even agree that theism isn't the best way to go if they can show me a more evidenced philosophy of life.

So, in my view, challenge all you want, but offer a better alternative to the thing you're challenging, or there's really no point.

[Darias]

I agree with fewwillfindit. How can you debate theology with a person who rejects the primary authority and source of the theology? The point is, I'm am not a literalist nor do I read the Bible as Fundamentalist schools of thought do, but I accept it as infallible in the areas of doctrine, dogma and theology. It's not a science text nor is it a complete history text, it's an infallible theological text.

I also share the sentiment with the people mentioned in the topic. The style of debate which some atheists engage in on this board would be laughed off stage if it were invoked in a university of public setting. I've noticed that some only ask questions, which is not debate. In a productive discussion, you're supposed to get two people exchanging ideas and alternatives and arguing that their case and ideas are better than the others persons. We don't always get that from some of the atheists on this board. Jester summed up the situation quite nicely in this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6&start=10

I'd say that this is one of the main reasons why theists don't hang around this site longer. It's definitely a big reason why I'm contemplating leaving. I don't care that some people out there don't agree with me on what constitutes evidence for God's existence. I feel that its there, and I'm tired of being asked to prove it to the incredulous.
If, however, those same incredulous people want to defend a position that succeeds where they say theism fails, I'm all ears. I'll even agree that theism isn't the best way to go if they can show me a more evidenced philosophy of life.

So, in my view, challenge all you want, but offer a better alternative to the thing you're challenging, or there's really no point.

But you fundamentally disagree with fewwillfindit because you don't believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant -- because it is wrong when it comes to evolution, etc. You only believe it tells the truth when it comes to doctrine and issues of faith, etc.

And you must also acknowledge that two of those posts were directed at me, a believer, not an Atheist. I'm not asking people to prove God's existence with evidence, that's impossible anyway.

All I'm asking for is for someone to logically defend their doctrinal beliefs against my question (in regards to the "sin" of homosexuality) which in part assumes Biblical inerrancy.

Yet no one is willing to debate with me because no one can defend their own doctrine in a consistent and logical manner -- all I get is "No need to debate with you, you don't agree with me on everything" or, "it's a holy mystery, have faith in God."

I find that to be dishonest.

For the life of me, I don't understand how any Christian could ever bring anyone into the faith if their own doctrinal/social beliefs are illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent -- I don't understand how anyone comes into the faith anymore apart from fear of hell or based solely upon their ignorance upon the teachings of Christianity.

No one here does something just because the Bible mentions it. Everyone has context or doctrinal reasons for obeying certain passages.

All I am asking is for someone to logically debate with me within that doctrinal framework without being inconsistent.

Just saying "The Bible says it; so end of discussion" is not good enough. The Bible says a lot of things that people ignore, so why are certain parts upheld while others ignored?

These are important questions, and they need to be discussed. There are many Christians and non-Christians out there who visit sites like these to get answers, and all I'm asking for is just a little bit of honesty.

... not personal attacks, not dodging, not red herrings, just a debate.

I'm not arguing "homosexuality is okay regardless of what the Bible says," I'm asking "Why is homosexuality the worst of sins when Paul's God breathed commands concerning women are altogether ignored? Why is one sin deemed an unrepentant lifestyle when the other is accepted as a cultural custom?"

Of course the only way one can answer that fairly is if they didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy -- but they of course they'd be arbitrarily picking and choosing which values of the Bible they wished to believe in -- as WP already does concerning the evolution of life on our planet.

The only other solution is to start making your wife wear a burqa in church, silent and hushed. Otherwise you're holding others to a standard you will not put yourself under, and that of course is hypocrisy. Why should they go to hell and you go to heaven when you both are living an unrepentant lifestyle -- different though they may be?

[Adstar]

Since you took the liberty to start a post regarding some of my comments, I should respond. Look Darias. What I find to be pointless is debating theology with someone who doesn't regard the Bible as true. Any debate that will ensue will be nothing but opinion. The very foundational starting point of theology is the Bible, yet you disregard most of it.

Theology is developed from the pages of Scripture. You do not believe Scripture, for the most part. Thus how can we have a fruitful debate? I seriously couldn't care less about discussing philosophy, and that's all it is when Scripture becomes relegated to nothing more than a collection of stories with some good morals thrown in and a bit of history tossed in for good measure.

To me the Bible is God-breathed. That means that Paul's writings are as authoritative as those of Moses or Isaiah, yet you disparage Paul every chance you get. Just today you said that it is possible that Jesus was schizophrenic! Yet that part is missing from my reply in the quote above.

Jesus was exactly what the Scriptures record that He claimed to be. Period. Any Christian who would even entertain the idea that He was schizophrenic is not a person that I am going to debate Scripture with. If you don't like this, then you can pray to your schizophrenic messiah about it.

Do you understand what I am saying? Am I being clear enough?

I agree with you. Debating with a "christian" who does not believe the bible is for the most part pointless. And counter productive if you want to discuss things with athiests.

It is especially annoying when your discussing things with an athiest and a "christian" of that kind interrupts and seeks to muddy the waters of your theology with their philosophy.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[otseng]

Part of the problem is that most Christians are unequipped to effectively engage in a meaningful discussion on matters of faith with non-Christians. Another problem is that most Christians power of intellectual and rational persuasion is lacking. The tactic that many use is to simply quote the Bible and they believe their job is done.

What I find to be pointless is debating theology with someone who doesn't regard the Bible as true.

In the TDD subforum, this would not be true. If a non-Christian participates in the TDD, he/she must make the presupposition that the Bible is authoritative. But, it doesn't mean that simply quoting the Bible makes one's position correct.

What's the point of surrounding yourselves with like-minded individuals who don't question or examine or put their own beliefs to the test?

Unfortunately, this is the environment that most Christians are exposed to in real life. Churches as a whole are filled with like-minded people who do not dare question their own beliefs.

Non-believers will be convinced by God when they hear the Gospel.

Depends on what you mean by the Gospel. If it's simply presenting a verse, I would disagree. If it's presenting verses within the context of apologetic reasoning and grace-filled lives, then I would agree.

Some of them know the Bible better than many Christians on this forum, so it isn't that they haven't heard the truth. They have been exposed to the Truth over and over, so they cannot plead ignorance.

Yes, it is very true that many non-Christians here know the Bible very well. But they do not plead ignorance. And here is evidence that simply knowing the Bible is not sufficient for them to become a Christian. What is required on this forum is apologetic reasoning. People need to be able to argue why the verses are correct, why Christianity is the truth, why we believe that God exist, why Christianity makes more sense than other worldviews.

I also share the sentiment with the people mentioned in the topic. The style of debate which some atheists engage in on this board would be laughed off stage if it were invoked in a university of public setting. I've noticed that some only ask questions, which is not debate. In a productive discussion, you're supposed to get two people exchanging ideas and alternatives and arguing that their case and ideas are better than the others persons. We don't always get that from some of the atheists on this board. Jester summed up the situation quite nicely in this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6&start=10

Do not be disheartened by this. What it shows me is the lack of power in their worldview. If a worldview cannot make any claims at all, then it is a weak worldview. On the other hand, Christianity is a powerful worldview and can stand up to any questions thrown at it. If someone places more weights on my bar, it will only make me stronger. If someone else cannot even place any weights on their bar, they will remain weak.

I'm not arguing "homosexuality is okay regardless of what the Bible says," I'm asking "Why is homosexuality the worst of sins when Paul's God breathed commands concerning women are altogether ignored? Why is one sin deemed an unrepentant lifestyle when the other is accepted as a cultural custom?"

I am a Bible literalist. And actually, I agree with you!

Debating with a "christian" who does not believe the bible is for the most part pointless. And counter productive if you want to discuss things with athiests.

I don't think any Christian here does not believe the Bible. I have yet to meet a Christian here that just wholesales throws out entire books of the Bible.

[Fisherking]

I agree with fewwillfindit. How can you debate theology with a person who rejects the primary authority and source of the theology? The point is, I'm am not a literalist nor do I read the Bible as Fundamentalist schools of thought do, but I accept it as infallible in the areas of doctrine, dogma and theology. It's not a science text nor is it a complete history text, it's an infallible theological text.

I also share the sentiment with the people mentioned in the topic. The style of debate which some atheists engage in on this board would be laughed off stage if it were invoked in a university of public setting. I've noticed that some only ask questions, which is not debate. In a productive discussion, you're supposed to get two people exchanging ideas and alternatives and arguing that their case and ideas are better than the others persons. We don't always get that from some of the atheists on this board. Jester summed up the situation quite nicely in this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6&start=10

I'd say that this is one of the main reasons why theists don't hang around this site longer. It's definitely a big reason why I'm contemplating leaving. I don't care that some people out there don't agree with me on what constitutes evidence for God's existence. I feel that its there, and I'm tired of being asked to prove it to the incredulous.
If, however, those same incredulous people want to defend a position that succeeds where they say theism fails, I'm all ears. I'll even agree that theism isn't the best way to go if they can show me a more evidenced philosophy of life.

So, in my view, challenge all you want, but offer a better alternative to the thing you're challenging, or there's really no point.

I would have to agree. There have been only a couple of atheists/non-theists that have ever attempted to defend their own beliefs on this forum. They spend all of their energy trying to avoid having to defend anything. In their mind, the ability to ask 1,000 questions per thread shows how smart and intelligent they are -- If that's the case though, my 5 year old is as smart and intelligent (they've asked many of the same questions).
If this were a playground, the atheists would be the bullies. The "non-theists" would be tagging along behind the bullies, wanting to be bullies but afraid they might have to actually fight. "the liberal Christians/theists" are tagging along behind the mob, wanting the bullies to like them and tell them how smart and intelligent they are (as they tell each other how smart and intelligent they are). They will associate with the nasty "fundamentalists" occasionally, but if the bullies are around, they do what they are told.

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

Guess who I think the cats are

[WinePusher]

But you fundamentally disagree with fewwillfindit because you don't believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant -- because it is wrong when it comes to evolution, etc. You only believe it tells the truth when it comes to doctrine and issues of faith, etc.

No, I know of no biblical verse or passage that positively asserts that evolution cannot occur. Evolution is a biological concept that describes the changes in species that occur gradually over time (descent with modification). My belief in evolution doesn't contradict my belief in biblical inerrancy just as my belief in germ theory doesn't contradict my belief in biblical inerrancy. That's because, as Stephen Jay Gould put it, they are non overlapping magisteria, they exist in to two different spheres of reality and shouldn't overlap.

Yet no one is willing to debate with me because no one can defend their own doctrine in a consistent and logical manner -- all I get is "No need to debate with you, you don't agree with me on everything" or, "it's a holy mystery, have faith in God."

Why isn't, in this situation, "the bible says so" not good enough of an answer?

For the life of me, I don't understand how any Christian could ever bring anyone into the faith if their own doctrinal/social beliefs are illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent -- I don't understand how anyone comes into the faith anymore apart from fear of hell or based solely upon their ignorance upon the teachings of Christianity.

When in fact they are not. The problem with your view and with liberal christianity in general is it dilutes the teaching and the bible so much in order to make it acceptable with non believers that there is nothing left. It's the Karen Armstrong types of the world that claim to be Christian but in fact take issue with the essential beliefs of Christianity and then go out and claim to be the rational representative of Christianity in the public.

Just saying "The Bible says it; so end of discussion" is not good enough. The Bible says a lot of things that people ignore, so why are certain parts upheld while others ignored?

Well, what's your understanding of the Bible. My view is, the Bible is a text that documents our salvation history. It reports God's active intervention in the world, which was ultimately geared towards human reconciliation with him and was culminated in the death, resurrection and ascencion of Jesus Christ. So, since I believe that I also believe that God inspired the ethics and moral teachings of the Bible. It's very clear that homosexuality is an undesirable, from the biblical perspective, so for you to suggest that God has no problem with makes me pause on how seriously you take what the Bible says.

I'm not arguing "homosexuality is okay regardless of what the Bible says," I'm asking "Why is homosexuality the worst of sins when Paul's God breathed commands concerning women are altogether ignored? Why is one sin deemed an unrepentant lifestyle when the other is accepted as a cultural custom?"

The only reference I can think of to Paul is the one he makes in Ephesians when he uses the submission of women to men to draw an analogy between God and his Church. That is not necessarily a teaching, but an analogy that draws on the cultural customs of Paul's community.

Do not be disheartened by this. What it shows me is the lack of power in their worldview. If a worldview cannot make any claims at all, then it is a weak worldview. On the other hand, Christianity is a powerful worldview and can stand up to any questions thrown at it. If someone places more weights on my bar, it will only make me stronger. If someone else cannot even place any weights on their bar, they will remain weak.

Don't worry, I'm not easily disheartened. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about frustration. While your distinction is a good one, the trouble is when people start claiming that atheism isn't a worldview (when it clearly is). My only grievance is when I present an argument, I would like to see a substantive rebuttal trying to show why or where I am wrong rather than a question asking me to prove it. Don't get me wrong, there are a great number of non-theists on here that debate, contribute their own ideas, and defend their own propositions which is productive.