Is the debate regarding Christianity getting too rough?

[Jagella]

Recently another member here, a Christian, characterized my criticisms of Christianity in general and the clergy in particular as "bigotry" and insulting. She was obviously upset with my arguments.

There's nothing new about my encountering this kind of reaction when I debate Christian apologists. Years ago on AOL (does anybody remember AOL?) a Christian who read what I was posting in a Christian chat room sent me a very angry email in which he essentially told me that I'm going to burn in hell.

So I'm wondering why Christians engage in debates and discussions online or offline, for that matter. It appears that Christians are OK as long as the person they engage in dialogue with agrees with them or at least doesn't disagree with them. Any open skepticism, criticism, or perceived disrespect of Christian beliefs is met with anger, grief, or abuse.

My own opinion is that Christians are primarily seeking agreement when they talk about their beliefs with other people. Agreement is important to Christians because it means that the other person is "saved" and confirms that the Christian is saved as well. In other words, if the other person spoken to adopts or already shares Christian beliefs, then those beliefs are seen to be more likely to be true. Many Christians harbor doubts, and they seek to overcome the pangs of those doubts by seeking confirmation for their beliefs from others. If the person disagrees with the Christian, then the "doubt pangs" are worsened, and the Christian becomes upset.

So that appears to me to be what Christian apologetics is all about. Outwardly it is the defense of the Christian faith against attacks from the outside, but in practice it is used to soothe doubts from the inside.

So why do you debate? Do you seek affirmation of your beliefs from others? Is the debate too rough if you encounter doubt?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 50 by Wootah]

If i may get too personal I think you should look more towards how you are saying it versus what you are saying. That's my sense when i read your posts.

I'm a very tough debater who tells it like it is. There is no dishonesty in anything I post. You are welcome to fact-check everything I say.

But thanks for the input. It appears to me that many religious believers want to be coddled. They seek assurance, and if they don't get it, they become upset.

Edit: Also posting images is never a good sign of a quality debater imo.

Hmmm. I have also found that the powerful communication made possible by images can lead to distress in believers.

So are you recommending that I post messages that assure and comfort Christians so they don't get upset?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Jagella]

You may perceive yourself as tough but until you said you used AOL I had perceived you as a teenager.

No i am taking the opportunity you provided to assist you.

[Jagella]

[Replying to Jagella]

You may perceive yourself as tough but until you said you used AOL I had perceived you as a teenager.

No i am taking the opportunity you provided to assist you.

I see the debate is getting rough, all right. What about this discussion made you decide to strike me on my cheek?

[marco]

[Replying to Jagella]

You may perceive yourself as tough but until you said you used AOL I had perceived you as a teenager.

No i am taking the opportunity you provided to assist you.

Moderator Comment

The exchanges here are becoming uncomfortably personal. Though the topic is about the roughness of debates we don't need practical examples. It's a good idea to return to the discussion.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 53 by Jagella]

What are you talking about?

Anyway it appears the opportunity has passed us by where you can receive useful information in this thread.

However let me assure you the fault is not where you claim.

[PinSeeker]

I think a lot of Christians, like you, believe that the Holy Spirit (aka The Invisible Man In The Sky or TIMITS) puts words into their mouths as well leaving me wonder why TIMITS has so many illogical arguments to make (not that you make illogical arguments--I don't know yet).

Ah, but that's not what I said. I said -- and I quote -- "the Holy Spirit... (uses) my comments to accomplish God's purposes, whether that's to draw people to Him or the opposite. Regarding your illogical arguments statement, there are at least two possibilities there:

1. The apologist (again) is not schooled well, or enough, in God's Word to present this or that in a logical manner.
2. The hearer refuses to accept the logic contained in proper biblical arguments for one reason or another (which doesn't make the biblical arguments themselves illogical).

In any case, it's not hard to see how if somebody believes that TIMITS or some other god leads them to speak, then they would get upset if anybody dares to disagree with them and ultimately with TIMITS.

Agree with this; this was my point, basically.

Almost all the Christians I know think that they're experts regarding the Bible, and of course they often contradict each other.

Right. It's a problem, for sure. But I wouldn't even limit it to what you're saying here. Even atheists (and everybody in between) think they know all there is to know about Christianity and the Bible.

I see you don't believe in free will which from a Biblical perspective is correct. Two examples: Paul of Tarsus was forced to convert to Christianity, and Mary was forced to bear Jesus.

A couple things to address here:

1. I do believe in "free will," but the Bible affirms that both it and God's absolute sovereignty both simultaneously exist. How can this be, you may ask? Well, it's pretty easy to reconcile the two, but difficult to really grasp: man's free will exists in the context of God's absolute sovereignty. We can talk about this further if you like.
2. Your examples here are great illustrations of point 1 above. God had chosen both Paul and Mary for specific purposes, but in both cases, nothing was done against his or her will.

I look forward to you backing me into a corner with some irrefutable arguments.

What I consider to be irrefutable and what you consider to be irrefutable concerning God's Word may be two different things in some/many/all cases. Because in the case of God's Word and it's infallibility... Well, I'll just let God's Word itself speak for me here:

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

In other words, in discussing the things of God, if the Spirit is not at work in you, then it will always remain "illogical" to you. Which goes back to the fact that, as I said before, man's free will -- and real understanding concerning the things of God -- exist within the sovereignty of God. That's okay if you can't really digest and understand that. Truthfully, nobody, including me, as a finite, limited, human being can fully understand it, even though some of us accept it and therefore know it to be true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by PinSeeker]

Ah, but that's not what I said. I said -- and I quote -- "the Holy Spirit... (uses) my comments to accomplish God's purposes, whether that's to draw people to Him or the opposite.

So then God's purpose is to (sometimes?) draw people away from him?

Right. It's a problem, for sure. But I wouldn't even limit it to what you're saying here. Even atheists (and everybody in between) think they know all there is to know about Christianity and the Bible.

Atheists thinking they're experts isn't a problem like what Christians like yourself think the Holy Spirit is or does. Atheists are not the ones claiming to have an all-wise God commanding/teaching them to speak.

God had chosen both Paul and Mary for specific purposes, but in both cases, nothing was done against his or her will.

Was a choice actually given to them? Was God seriously going to leave them alone if he had presented a choice to them? Or is the narrative as I think it - God shows up (or should I say angels do) in his majesty and glory, and Mary is too humble and awe-struck to even think of rejecting the task given to her?

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

In other words, in discussing the things of God, if the Spirit is not at work in you, then it will always remain "illogical" to you.

Here's a question for you. Is that verse, itself some sort of divine wisdom? Could it not have been observed by Paul that people who don't believe in Gods sometimes scoff at claimed Godly wisdom?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 56 by PinSeeker]

Ah, but that's not what I said. I said -- and I quote -- "the Holy Spirit... (uses) my comments to accomplish God's purposes, whether that's to draw people to Him or the opposite.

Well, that sure sounds like TIMITS is putting words into your mouth. Anyway, the Bible does indeed say TIMITS puts words into people's mouths. Just check Acts 2:4.

Regarding your illogical arguments statement, there are at least two possibilities there:

1. The apologist (again) is not schooled well, or enough, in God's Word to present this or that in a logical manner.
2. The hearer refuses to accept the logic contained in proper biblical arguments for one reason or another (which doesn't make the biblical arguments themselves illogical).

Another possibility is that TIMITS is a delusion, and people are just making it all up.

Even atheists (and everybody in between) think they know all there is to know about Christianity and the Bible.

What atheists have said they know all there is to know about Christianity and the Bible?

God had chosen both Paul and Mary for specific purposes, but in both cases, nothing was done against his or her will.

Paul, for one, was blinded and knocked off of his horse by Jesus and was not able to eat or drink for three days. Ananias was then ordered by TIMITS to convert Paul without Paul ever consenting.

What I consider to be irrefutable and what you consider to be irrefutable concerning God's Word may be two different things in some/many/all cases. Because in the case of God's Word and it's infallibility... Well, I'll just let God's Word itself speak for me here:

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

In other words, in discussing the things of God, if the Spirit is not at work in you, then it will always remain "illogical" to you. Which goes back to the fact that, as I said before, man's free will -- and real understanding concerning the things of God -- exist within the sovereignty of God. That's okay if you can't really digest and understand that. Truthfully, nobody, including me, as a finite, limited, human being can fully understand it, even though some of us accept it and therefore know it to be true.

You're more than welcome to test my understanding. You appear to be confusing disagreement with ignorance.

In any case, I look forward to you using your God-like understanding to set me straight. Surely a person inspired by TIMITS himself has much to share with all of us natural men.

[PinSeeker]

So then God's purpose is to (sometimes?) draw people away from him?

Sort of. Isaiah 55:10-11 says:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth aAnd making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eate; So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

I mean, you can disagree if you want, man, but I'm just the messenger. But the best way to say is, God purposes to save some, but not all. By implication, that means he does NOT purpose to save others. He made us all. We all chose -- in Adam -- to sin. So God would be perfectly just to not purpose to save any of us.

Atheists thinking they're experts isn't a problem like what Christians like yourself think the Holy Spirit is or does. Atheists are not the ones claiming to have an all-wise God commanding/teaching them to speak.

Well, God -- Jesus -- does command us to share the Gospel with folks. And He teaches us through His word. And our responsibility is to pay attention and learn and act accordingly. But God is all-wise; God is, well, God. In the end, I would say the same here as above -- your issue is not really with me or other Christians, it's with God. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Was a choice actually given to (Paul/Mary)?

Well, we have to step back from this and say that God was already at work in the hearts of both Paul and Mary. So both Paul and Mary agreed to God's purposes; they could do no other, because of what God had put in their hearts.

In other words, in discussing the things of God, if the Spirit is not at work in you, then it will always remain "illogical" to you.

Not necessarily. It may be very logical, but just unacceptable. "Foolishness" can take different forms.

Here's a question for you. Is that verse, itself some sort of divine wisdom?

Well, it's part of the Word of God, sure.

Could it not have been observed by Paul that people who don't believe in Gods sometimes scoff at claimed Godly wisdom?

Sure. But God spoke through Paul to the Church at Corinth (and to us). That's why it's in the Bible. It's both/and, not either/or.

[PinSeeker]

Anyway, the Bible does indeed say TIMITS puts words into people's mouths. Just check Acts 2:4.

That's about speaking in tongues. That happens only very, VERY occasionally, if it happens at all anymore. My personal believe if that it doesn't.

Regarding your illogical arguments statement, there are at least two possibilities there:

1. The apologist (again) is not schooled well, or enough, in God's Word to present this or that in a logical manner.
2. The hearer refuses to accept the logic contained in proper biblical arguments for one reason or another (which doesn't make the biblical arguments themselves illogical).

Another possibility is that TIMITS is a delusion, and people are just making it all up.

To unbelievers, sure. It's foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14 again...)

What atheists have said they know all there is to know about Christianity and the Bible?

Many folks (atheists) make statements about it often. Here, I'll give you an example that I bet you've been guilty of from time to time. An atheist might say, "You're Bible tells you not to judge people." Well, that's a misunderstanding of what that passage is all about. No Christian -- no Christian worth his salt, anyway -- passes judgment upon, or condemns, anyone for what they do. And in fact, in doing so, these Christians admit their sinfulness also. All Christians do is relate what God has said is right and wrong. And further than that, Christians (anybody, really) are perfectly justified in making judgments for themselves between what is right and what is wrong. In that sense, to tell a Christian they can't make judgments is to tell them not to think. Which is just ridiculous.

Paul, for one, was blinded and knocked off of his horse by Jesus and was not able to eat or drink for three days. Ananias was then ordered by TIMITS to convert Paul without Paul ever consenting.

LOL! No, Paul fell off his horse (presumably because he was so surprised and overwhelmed by what was happening): "...suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him..." (Acts 9:3). Ananias was told what to look for and how to help him regain his sight and then to begin his (Paul's) ministry. Salvation is of the Lord. No man "converts" anybody.

You're more than welcome to test my understanding. You appear to be confusing disagreement with ignorance.

Nope. Those are two different things, for sure. I'm quite sure you would understand what I say. But the issue is not understanding; it is acceptance. And no mere man (you or me or anyone else) can do that concerning the things of God unless God has first regenerated his heart. Ezekiel 36 says this well:

"...I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you..."

This is how salvation works. And Romans 8 is also very clear:

"...these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified..."

Salvation is of the Lord, whole and entire, beginning to end.

In any case, I look forward to you using your God-like understanding to set me straight.

Well, I can use my God-given understanding, for sure. But again, whether you will be "set straight" or not is up to God.

Surely a person inspired by TIMITS himself has much to share with all of us natural men.

No doubt. But I'm not "unnatural," in the human sense. This is another subject, but suffice it to say, I'm no different than you. We are both sinners. The difference is that I am a redeemed sinner, but I'm still a sinner none the less. But the great thing is, you can be, too.