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]

I get it: "unable to understand" was an unfortunate turn of phrase. No more. Rephrasing would solve the problem.

Moderating is always a lose-lose proposition. It doesn't matter how I phrase things, people can take it the wrong way.

OK, how about if I rephrase it as "Since you do not understand the rules..."?

[otseng]

This thread is only getting uglier, which is why I asked it be closed earlier. It has totally be derailed...

I'll take the responsibility for the derailing and my apologies for that. But the issue I've raised here is an ongoing one and one of several that has recently caused me to seriously consider leaving this cite permanently. I figured this was as good a place to air it out as any.

Then out with it please. What exactly has been on your mind that you want to air out? Do you have some vendetta against me? The rules? Moderating?

[otseng]

2) I gave you two replies where I asked you to clarify your beliefs and clarified my own beliefs, I didn't get a response. If you want productive debate, give me a point by point rebuttal and not a lengthy aside.
3) First you created a thread where you quoted 3 specific fundamentalist users because you took issue with their behavior towards debate, are your own beliefs fair game or are they not to be challenged in this thread?

Let's not turn this into a debate thread about what Darias believes. What Darias has pointed out is that people are unwilling to debate him. If anything, you can discuss that.

[otseng]

What is the basic raw definition of Christianity? Anyone? "I believe in Jesus" is so vague it really defines nothing.

That is a huge debate in itself. Let's avoid going into that here.

[Slopeshoulder]

Few,
We actually agree on a few core seesentials. namely that ti shouldn't be watered down to some vague or new agey set of morals and nice thoughts. Here's more...

What is the basic raw definition of Christianity? Anyone? "I believe in Jesus" is so vague it really defines nothing.

This is a good point and I agree. Belief in Jesus has to have some depth, breadth, meaning, teeth, and specificity. It has to soak into one's very being and impact/transform all of life.

One must at least believe that Jesus is God, no? One must also believe that He literally, not figuratively, died for our sins, was literally resurrected and now literally sits at the right hand of the literal Father in a literal Heaven. One must also believe that sin is real, that mankind is inherently sinful, thus the need for a Savior.

I agree that we all need to believe this. And a lot more. But I think you are making the same point Winepusher made and that I rebutted above, namely that belief must be literal. And I think it's a mistake to reduce it to a short list and demand literal beleif to it. I'd rather take in the entirely of scripture and doctrine, yet lose the literalisms where it seems untenable not to do so. You seem to be demanding that belief = literal belief. And that is merely repeating an opinion and insisting that it is the only way to do it, ignoring the saintly and devout beliefs and lives of millions who disagree with you and take a different approach over hundreds of years.

A literal savior. Not a nice metaphor for the enlightenment of mankind or "christ consciousness" or some kind of bunk like that.

Well literal in the sense that faith in Jesus is literally salvific, yes. And I agree that a nice little metaphor won't cut it. But you are reducing what liberals mean. Christ consciousness is a profound notion that is consistent with orthodoxy, I think, in the hands of Christians (as opposed to new agers). Longer discussion. And by calling it "bunk" you are simply stating opinion, being uncivil in a way, and showing what you seem not to know about ver much but rather simply dismiss.

In my opinion, this is a generously minimalistic list, and is by no means complete, but these are the most basic, barebones essentials that one has to believe to be a Christian, else what is Christianity? If it were nothing more than a set of good morals, the Jews had the corner on that market with the Mosaic Law. In that case, what would be the need for a Savior, and by extension, Christianity?

io agree. we simply differ on literal vs. mystical interpretations. I'll throw you a bone: I know that 90% of believers take it literally. Fine. Good for them. That's their level and their preference. I also suspect that 90% of people who leave Christianity do so because they can't take it literaly and know of no alternative. IMO the churches have failed to reach out to these critical seekers and offer a new path. But there are MANY have found it, and we're pretty gounded and orthodox, not new agey, and not reductionistic.

Is this list too exacting? Is it too harsh? Surely liberal Christians can at least agree to these basic truths, right?

I agree. And more. I just ask that you open your mind that there is a range of ways to be orthdox and that many devout christians can be found along that range.
Again, literal belief is not the only legitimate belief. And the alternative is not heresy or new age nonsense. Let alone "bunk." We see literal beliefs about magical events by adults in 2011 to be bunk. Let's let that go.

[otseng]

And somehow people take this criticism of mine about a doctrine or about a personal observation I wanted to make, and they twist it into some kind of personal insult, to the point where it, in their minds, warrants labeling people as "un-saved" -- and if you don't know what that means, it means "you're (generally speaking) going to hell" -- this is especially so when it comes from a fundamentalist.

Or when someone attacks you and you point it out and he takes it as an offense. Oh, please...

[otseng]

1. I believe God is omnibenevolent

This is really odd that people would say that you're not a Christian because you believe God is omnibenevolent. Almost all the Christians I've met would say that God is omnibenevolent.

2. Because I do not believe every single verse is inerrant.

There is a simple solution for this, just say that you take those verses metaphorically.

[otseng]

The only extra-biblical references to teh flood is the Gilgamesh Epic, which is also considered mythical.

Correction, see here for more flood accounts.

I'm not a moderator.

Why does the legend on the main page show that you are? Your name is green and bolded

WinePusher is only the moderator of the Catholicism subforum. The PHPBB forum software indicates any moderator with green. One of these days I'll get around to fixing that.

[Goose]

I'm already allowing this thread some freedom.

I would say selective freedom where it suites you.

And do you view the statement that you are "stirring the post for no apparent reason" a person attack and your comment of me of a "rather high, somewhat self righteous, and non-Biblical personal standard of conduct" not a personal attack?

They are both personal attacks – no question about it. (with the exception that your personal standard of conduct is non Biblical – I don’t see that as an attack. It is a fact. And I argued for why – here) Don’t you think they are both attacks? Yet you allow them. Hence selective freedom. You won’t personally attack me but Slopeshoulder is saying what you are thinking so you allow his attack to stand.

Also, I do view you as stirring the pot when I've already apologized and removed any possible inferences that AmazingJesus is "less than dull". Yet you continually harp on this.

Oh, so a personal attack is okay as long as you personally view it to be true. And let's be clear, I’ve harped on you removing someone from a user group when you made the very same type of personal attack the person that you had removed made. The “dull� thing was a “moreover� thing and not particularly relevant. I withdraw it.

Is this not stirring the post for no apparent reason?

There are several reasons. One, among another I've already given, is that I’ve seen what I believe to be an injustice take place. And I’m addressing it. If that is stirring the pot, so be it.

As for reinstating AmazingJesusIs into the BK usergroup, if he will publicly apologize to Darias for saying that he is not a Christian, I will reinstate him.

Fair enough. That wasn’t so hard now was it?

Then out with it please. What exactly has been on your mind that you want to air out? Do you have some vendetta against me? The rules? Moderating?

Out with it here? Or via PM?

[otseng]

I'm already allowing this thread some freedom.

I would say selective freedom where it suites you.

I would not say me being called a "damn fundy" exactly suits me.

You won’t personally attack me but Slopeshoulder is saying what you are thinking so you allow his attack to stand.

Actually, I don't view him commenting on your actions here as a personal attack.

Is this not stirring the post for no apparent reason?

There are several reasons. One, among another I've already given, is that I’ve seen what I believe to be an injustice take place. And I’m addressing it. If that is stirring the pot, so be it.

And I believe having consequences of not obeying the rules is not considered injustice.

As for reinstating AmazingJesusIs into the BK usergroup, if he will publicly apologize to Darias for saying that he is not a Christian, I will reinstate him.

Fair enough. That wasn’t so hard now was it?

Hard? You didn't even suggest this idea. All you suggested was I either reinstate him (without conditions) or I remove myself from the group.

Then out with it please. What exactly has been on your mind that you want to air out? Do you have some vendetta against me? The rules? Moderating?

Out with it here? Or via PM?

I think we'll need some privacy. Send me a PM.