A call to Christian Debaters

[liamconnor]

I continue to be terribly frustrated with one prevalent flaw in these debates: deviations. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I frequent this site less and less.

I myself am extremely careful to make sure every reply I make keeps to the OP. At my worst, I explicitly mention that the OP is being broken, and then answer a question. But I always say, after a while, "Let's start a new OP".

I consider the tendency to deviate to be either 1) a deficiency in intellect: the guilty has nothing to say about the OP, and so changes the subject, but lacks the cognizance to know what she or he is doing or 2) A malicious strategy: the one who deviates knows his/her position is compromised and so changes it to hide his or her tracks.

Now, in order to turn an appeal into a debate, I ask, "Are these valid, and the only, reasons why nearly EVERY SINGLE MEMBER HERE deviates from a topic rather than CHALLENGING MEMBERS TO STICK TO A TOPIC?"

(But really, I am asking for Christian Debaters to get smart. Don't get side-tracked. If an opponent makes a claim that goes beyond the OP, simply say, 'I am happy to start a new OP with you, or to talk about this over PM'. We are doing the Kingdom NO good by allowing our emotions to follow the temptation of sliding this way and that among topics. Let's be sly. Let's notice when antagonists are attempting to 'change the subject by rattling us').

[benchwarmer]

Here's my attempt to understand both sides. First, B's position. B is frustrated with A, because A is insisting that we take as a premise the historical reliability of the gospel accounts. But B doesn't accept that as a valid premise, so B feels that the whole discussion is futile. In effect we are assuming what needs to be established from reasoning and evidence. And what's the point of that?

Now I want to pause here and ask you a question: Do you think I have summed up B's position fairly?

IMHO, no I would say you have not exactly summed up B's position. As DI already mentioned in a previous post, B has usually tried two lines of discussion.

1) Asking how exactly the gospels can be considered historically reliable when they obviously contain, for lack of a better word, magic. This 'magic' goes against all currently observable reality, thus they are highly suspect. So it is usually asked that A provide some external (to the gospels) supporting evidence. Nothing of import is ever produced.

2) B grants, for the sake of argument, that the gospels be taken as historically accurate. This then gives credence to all the contradictions and magic contained therein. This discussion will then end in B asking how A reconciles all the problems.

Either way, A is stuck and A eventually complains "off topic" because, IMHO, no rebuttal adequately addresses the real issues.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

Essentially it doesn't matter. If one continues to take the bait knowing the outcome is always the same then one has not learned from the repeated pattern of that interaction. Eventually one either wises up to that or remains willfully oblivious - at least, pretentiously so.

If one understands the dynamic of such interaction, and still pursues that course, one can hardly expect one's complaints to be thought of as relevant by others.

[Replying to post 21 by benchwarmer]

B knows the pattern but plays that game anyway, over and over an over...it is an interesting dynamic to observe.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 21 by benchwarmer]

B knows the pattern but plays that game anyway, over and over an over...it is an interesting dynamic to observe.

Granted, but this entire site is really just that for the most part. One side puts up basically the same argument, the other side counters with basically the same rebuttal. This applies to all sides in general.

Yet, here we all are, trying to see if anyone has some new or interesting way of looking at things. Sometimes we learn something new or discover new insight into the other side's viewpoint. For me it's fun, educational (for me), and worth the time spent. If/when I grow tired of seeing the same thing over and over, I will no doubt melt off into the ether as so many have before. Until then:

[Divine Insight]

Here's my attempt to understand both sides. First, B's position. B is frustrated with A, because A is insisting that we take as a premise the historical reliability of the gospel accounts. But B doesn't accept that as a valid premise, so B feels that the whole discussion is futile. In effect we are assuming what needs to be established from reasoning and evidence. And what's the point of that?

Now I want to pause here and ask you a question: Do you think I have summed up B's position fairly?
(I will also focus on A's position, but I'd prefer not to rush this process. It's helpful - for me at least! - to get one side sorted at a time.)

Benchwarmer has pretty much already expressed my view in post 21, but I'll reaffirm that position here.

You ask, "Do you think I have summed up B's position fairly?"

No I do not. The reason being that B isn't frustrated about anything. All B is trying to do is embrace A's premise. B is simply saying, "Ok if we're going to take the NT as being a historically credible document, then we need to embrace everything the NT has to say, not just cherry-picking a few choice items like A wants to do.

In other words, B wants to address places where it says that many saints were physically jostled from their graves and made their way into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there. And if we accept this as credible historical event then what results should we expect from this?

But then A starts screaming, "Your Off Topic!". But how is that off-topic if we're supposed to be embracing the entire NT as a credible historical account?

Also, the NT also states that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

Well, if we have already embraced the premise that we need to take the NT as undeniable verified History, then we're DONE! There is nothing left to debate. God proclaimed from the clouds that Jesus was his Son. If we aren't permitted to question this and we must accept this as a historically verified fact, then what's to debate?

Person A rejects this and screams again, "You're Off Topic!".

But person B asks, "Why is this off-topic if we're supposed to be viewing the NT has credible history?"


The point that B is trying to make is that, sure, if we demand that the Gospels be taken to be the "Gospel Truth" (i.e. credible verified history) then we most certainly would indeed be required to accept everything they have to say as credibly verified truth.

But if we're going to start a debate with that as a premise then what's the point to the debate at all? That would be the question that B want's answered.

By accepted the premise that everything the NT has to say is credible verified history then we have no choice but to also embrace the conclusion that everything the NT has to day is credible verified history.

What kind of a debate is that?

The conclusion that Mr. A wants to argue for has been forced into existence by demanding that Mr. B begin the debate with the conclusion that everything the Gospels have to say must be debated as though it represents irrefutable truth.

Is that a valid debate?

And to make things even more underhanded, Mr. A decrees that anyone who refuses to recognize that the New Testament is credible verified history would be considered to be a flunk-out by Harvard and Yale.

Clearly, if there was ever a 'rigged' debate this would be a textbook example of one.

That's how I see it.

[peterk]

You ask, "Do you think I have summed up B's position fairly?"

No I do not.

OK. I apologise, and would like to try again. This is what I'm hearing you say.

(1) The issue for B is not emotional, it's rational. Therefore if I use words like 'frustration' I miss the point. It would be better to use words such as reason and opinions.

(2) B hears A claim that the whole NT is historically reliable. But B also sees A cherry-picking particular texts, and being unwilling to face honestly the logic of certain "magical" texts such as God speaking to Jesus from the clouds, or resurrected people coming out of their tombs. If the whole NT is historically reliable, then these stories must be historically reliable. But obviously they are not. Yet A is not willing to acknowledge the contradictions.

(3) B also wants to point out that if we start a debate with the premise that the whole NT is reliable, then we make the whole debate pointless. If that premise is accepted then the conclusion follows by simple definition: the NT is true because A says so. That's the classic definition of a rigged debate.

Is that a fair summary?

[Divine Insight]

You ask, "Do you think I have summed up B's position fairly?"

No I do not.

OK. I apologise, and would like to try again. This is what I'm hearing you say.

(1) The issue for B is not emotional, it's rational. Therefore if I use words like 'frustration' I miss the point. It would be better to use words such as reason and opinions.

(2) B hears A claim that the whole NT is historically reliable. But B also sees A cherry-picking particular texts, and being unwilling to face honestly the logic of certain "magical" texts such as God speaking to Jesus from the clouds, or resurrected people coming out of their tombs. If the whole NT is historically reliable, then these stories must be historically reliable. But obviously they are not. Yet A is not willing to acknowledge the contradictions.

(3) B also wants to point out that if we start a debate with the premise that the whole NT is reliable, then we make the whole debate pointless. If that premise is accepted then the conclusion follows by simple definition: the NT is true because A says so. That's the classic definition of a rigged debate.

Is that a fair summary?

I would agree that you understood concepts #1 and #3.

On concept #2 I would say that I failed to communicate my points to you correctly as you seem to have misunderstood what I had said exactly. So I'm more than willing to clarify:

I wasn't saying that a God speaking from the clouds, or that saints physically being jostled from graves, is necessarily impossible thus rending the biblical stories clearly false.

Instead, what I was attempting to illustrate is that the moment those parts of the NT stories were brought up person B was instantly accused of being "off-topic". In other words, person A refused to even acknowledge or discuss those parts of the NT. So it wasn't that person B was saying that they were impossible, but rather that they are simply part of the NT and therefore must be considered to be "historical" as well if we're going to embrace the premise that the NT is a trustworthy historical account. Therefore they can hardly be banned as "off-topic".

There are other problems with those events that remain even if we allow that they had actually historically happened.

Just briefly:

1. Saints being raised from their graves BEFORE judgement day? And why were they "saved"? Did they earn their own salvation? If so, then why is Jesus required for other people to earn their own salvation?

2. God confirming for even Jesus' own disciples that Jesus is his son, all the while everyone else needs to believe that Jesus was God's son based on rumors. In other words, according to the NT, even God didn't expect people to believe Jesus.

In other words, there are many inconsistencies in the behavior described that would lead to contradictions concerning this God, and this religious doctrine. So even if we accept that this is a historical account, all that does is result in creating many questionable contradictions and inconsistencies. The two mentioned above are only the tip of the iceberg.

I can certainly understand why a theist would not want to have to deal with all these self-contradictory aspects of the NT. But demanding that we accept the NT as historically accurate while simultaneously demanding that much of what is in it is "off-topic' simply isn't a consistent position to take.

And let's not forget the ultimate "Forced Conclusion". If we do accept the premise that the NT is an accurate account of history then we have God himself proclaiming that Jesus is his Son. Therefore we are "Forced" to accept that this really did happen historically and therefore it must be true no matter how inconsistent or self-contradictory it may appear to be.

In other words, to even start with the premise that the Gospels must be examined only from the premise that they represent (verified credible history) or "Gospel Truth" pretty much forces the end result that they must then be telling the truth.

So I ask you how this would not be a "rigged" debate? The only conclusion you are permitted to make is the conclusion that the Gospels are "Gospel Truth". Anything else is branded as being "Off-Topic".

[peterk]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]

Ok, so #1 and #3 are fair summaries. Thank you for that confirmation.

As to #2, let me see if I can rephrase it to reflect your opinions reasonably:

While a passage such as a heavenly voice or tomb resurrections is not necessarily impossible or false, it is wrong in a debate for such passages to be ruled out of order or "off topic", and thus not able to be discussed. If the claim is that the whole NT is historically reliable, then such passages can not be banned from the debate.

Then you proceed to add "other problems" with these texts. The paragraphs that you numbered (1) and (2) appear to me to be theological in nature: questions about the nature of salvation and about believing in Jesus.

You finish by asking me a question that returns to the theme of a rigged debate. I want to highlight here that I am happy to discuss any questions you have, so if that's the most important issue then we can consider it. But so far in this thread I thought the issue was about failure to understand the other person. For that reason I'm choosing not to say what I think about issues you have raised, until you are satisfied that I understand you accurately. For me listening is as critical as speaking; that's what I'm trying to model.

[Divine Insight]

Ok, so #1 and #3 are fair summaries. Thank you for that confirmation.

As to #2, let me see if I can rephrase it to reflect your opinions reasonably:

While a passage such as a heavenly voice or tomb resurrections is not necessarily impossible or false, it is wrong in a debate for such passages to be ruled out of order or "off topic", and thus not able to be discussed. If the claim is that the whole NT is historically reliable, then such passages can not be banned from the debate.

Yes, I would say that this is a correct understanding of my position.

Then you proceed to add "other problems" with these texts. The paragraphs that you numbered (1) and (2) appear to me to be theological in nature: questions about the nature of salvation and about believing in Jesus.

Yes, I agree. These would be what I would consider to be serious problems with the theology if accepted as written.

I have no problem discussing the Biblical Scriptures from a theological perspective. In fact, I would much rather do that than having someone claim that the Gospels represent verified historical events.

For that reason I'm choosing not to say what I think about issues you have raised, until you are satisfied that I understand you accurately. For me listening is as critical as speaking; that's what I'm trying to model.

I agree. And I certainly attempt to listen to the arguments of the other side as well.

If you'd like to have a theological discussion on any of these topics I'd be all for that. I would suggest starting a fresh thread for the specific theological topic you'd like to discuss rather than trying to have that discussion in this thread.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]

I can certainly understand why a theist would not want to have to deal with all these self-contradictory aspects of the NT. But demanding that we accept the NT as historically accurate while simultaneously demanding that much of what is in it is "off-topic' simply isn't a consistent position to take.

The way my line of thinking goes is like this - imagine someone hands me an ancient document that tells a story about a king fighting a great battle, winning and establishing a mighty empire in a particular place.
The parchment itself is dated to be old, but I will ask archaeologists, historians, is there anything at else, other than this document that establishes this king fought this battle and that this is where his empire existed?
They say no. There are no coins, no statues, no tablets, no new architecture, no mass graves. No arrow-heads, or swords. No writings from people in that time period mentioning this empire.
I ask myself - shouldn't these things exist if the king had really won a great battle and founded an empire? It's not exactly easy to found one and leave no physical traces.

I do somewhat the same thing with the New Testament. Let's say for the sake of argument, the NT happened. What then should we expect to see...or should I say predict?
Well...for one, Gospel Matthew's saints rising from the tomb and wandering into Jerusalem. Such a thing should have had many people writing about it, or painting it. And yet, curiously enough, only Gospel Matthew has it. Not even the other Gospels within the New Testament have it.
How about the NT saying that Jesus was known far and wide, that kings or magi came from far away to see him just after he was born, and that during his ministry, thousands of people came from all over to listen to his teachings?
Shouldn't I expect to see documents from the time he was around? Would you, upon seeing the savior messiah of your people, only get down to writing about him 20 or 30 or 40 years later?

It's just like with Moses and the plagues that befell Egypt. Supposedly, Egypt's food sources would have been wiped out (several times over, might I add?). So going with that, one would expect to see an influx of Egyptian treasures and coinage in the archaeological record of surrounding nations, as panicked Egyptian traders would have been willing, in that situation, to pay top dollar for food. Or an exodus not just of Hebrews, but of the Egyptians themselves.
But we don't see anything like that. Strange, isn't it?

[Divine Insight]

Well...for one, Gospel Matthew's saints rising from the tomb and wandering into Jerusalem. Such a thing should have had many people writing about it, or painting it. And yet, curiously enough, only Gospel Matthew has it. Not even the other Gospels within the New Testament have it.

Exactly. In fact, that was my original purpose for bringing this up. If this was a historical event we should expect to see other historical evidence for it. Not only this, but as you say, why would Matthew be the only person in the Gospels to have written about it. Surely if the other authors knew about it they would have mentioned it as well. But they didn't. This brings the honesty of Matthew's accounts into question.

What kind of "historians" are these when they leave out such important details? And if this wasn't important then why did God bother doing it?

Also, who lived in the Holy City? The Jews, right? Yet the Jews didn't believe a word of these Gospels. So apparently they didn't see any raised saints showing off their resurrected bodies.

But remember, in the context of the topic of this thread, any mention of these raised saints was deemed to be "off-topic" and a distraction intended to side-track away from the resurrection of Jesus. Even though according to Matthew this was a major event that was directly associated with the resurrection of Jesus.

How about the NT saying that Jesus was known far and wide, that kings or magi came from far away to see him just after he was born, and that during his ministry, thousands of people came from all over to listen to his teachings?
Shouldn't I expect to see documents from the time he was around? Would you, upon seeing the savior messiah of your people, only get down to writing about him 20 or 30 or 40 years later?

Again, I agree. That too is in the NT, and therefore should not be deemed as "off-topic". And I agree, there is a huge historical problem with a claim that Jesus was so popular that he was known far and wide, yet no other culture wrote about having ever heard of him at the time.

But keep in mind, the debate premise is that if you don't accept the Gospels as being "verified credible history" then Yale and Harvard will brand you a 'flunk-out'. So by the debate premise you're not permitted to question whether or not the NT is historically correct. The moment you do that you are branded as being an uneducated flunk-out.

It's just like with Moses and the plagues that befell Egypt. Supposedly, Egypt's food sources would have been wiped out (several times over, might I add?). So going with that, one would expect to see an influx of Egyptian treasures and coinage in the archaeological record of surrounding nations, as panicked Egyptian traders would have been willing, in that situation, to pay top dollar for food. Or an exodus not just of Hebrews, but of the Egyptians themselves.
But we don't see anything like that. Strange, isn't it?

Agreed. But remember we're talking about a rigged debate where any mention of the problems with the Old Testament have been deemed "off-topic".

Heck, we can't even bring up problems with the New Testament without being accused of being "off-topic".