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').

[peterk]

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.

Divine Insight, I think this is a good time to review our discussion so far:
(1) In my first post I raised the issue of poor listening skills. I said, "I can't remember one discussion where someone who disagreed with me showed me by his response that he had a clear understanding of my position." (see post #17)

(2) You responded with this question: "What if someone actually does understand your position and you just aren't realizing it?" You supported that question with a case study about the historical nature of the New Testament. (see post #19)

(3) I picked up the case study and focussed first on the listening issue. Have I correctly understood the case study and your views on it? So I reflected back to you what I was hearing (see post #20). You corrected me where I was wrong, and affirmed me where I had understood correctly. By respectful dialogue we reached the point where I could state accurately your position. (see posts #24, #26, #27, #28)

I'm taking the time to review this because for me the issue has never been about the reliability of the NT. That's an important and reasonable topic for discussion, but for me this thread is exactly on point as a discussion of how debate and discussion is conducted. Even in this thread I have concerns on that score:

(1) When I raised the issue your first instinct was to bring the assumption that the other person truly understood me, but I was the one blind to the issue. What struck me about that response was that I hadn't mentioned any details about the topics being discussed, but that didn't matter. You simply jumped in with an assumption and never bothered to find out more about the setting.

(2) If our discussion so far shows anything, it shows that the only way to be sure you understand another person's view is to reflect back to them what you think they are saying. I think I can say that I've proved the ability to listen carefully and understand accurately. And I've done it despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of what you've said.

(3) The reason I had a chance of understanding accurately was because your view was actually that of Person B in the case study. Because it was your view, you were able to describe it respectfully and gently. I'm still waiting to see you treat fairly the other side of the case study. If you are able to truly understand other views, what would a postive summary of Person A look like?

(4) For example, when I described Person B as "frustrated" you were very quick to correct me. And yet every time you talk about Person A he is "screaming". You're reasonable; he's screaming. I imagine if I could talk to Person A, he would use very different language. Those little details are to me important signs that real listening is not taking place.

I should add here that I do not doubt your sincerity at all. When you say, "I certainly attempt to listen to the arguments of the other side as well" I am convinced that you believe what you say. But I don't see the evidence of it in your replies.

I didn't enjoy writing this, because I don't like being negative about other people. But I think that if we're going to have meaningful discussions we need to get real about this stuff. I wish you all the best.

[Divine Insight]

(4) For example, when I described Person B as "frustrated" you were very quick to correct me. And yet every time you talk about Person A he is "screaming". You're reasonable; he's screaming. I imagine if I could talk to Person A, he would use very different language. Those little details are to me important signs that real listening is not taking place.

I should add here that I do not doubt your sincerity at all. When you say, "I certainly attempt to listen to the arguments of the other side as well" I am convinced that you believe what you say. But I don't see the evidence of it in your replies.

I didn't enjoy writing this, because I don't like being negative about other people. But I think that if we're going to have meaningful discussions we need to get real about this stuff. I wish you all the best.

I suggest that your above analysis is simply wrong. You have singled in on a single word that I had used (i.e. "screaming") to describe the other person's behavior, and have apparently assigned it a negative connotation that was never my intent.

So here you are jumping to incorrect conclusions again without double-checking to see whether your impressions are indeed correct.

You say:

You're reasonable; he's screaming. I imagine if I could talk to Person A, he would use very different language. Those little details are to me important signs that real listening is not taking place.

Here's the important details for you here. When I said that person A was "screaming" I didn't mean that he was raising his voice and speaking in a state of lost temper.

To the contrary, I meant it in the sense that he was continually talking "at" me whilst constantly refusing to acknowledge anything I've said. (like a child might do when they cover their ears and refuse to listen).

And isn't listening what you claim to be so interested in?

When someone repeatedly continues to refuse to listen to anything I say and keeps repeating utter nonsense like "Your off-topic". I consider that to be "screaming" even if they do this in a normal tone of voice.

So now here you are attempting to nitpick a single adjective that I had used and attempt to use that as a case to belittle my character and suggest that I don't listen to what others are saying.

I personally find that to be extremely dishonest, and even potentially an attempt to slander me by nitpicking at a possible semantic interpretation of a single word.

Especially when you say at the end or your statement:

I didn't enjoy writing this, because I don't like being negative about other people. But I think that if we're going to have meaningful discussions we need to get real about this stuff. I wish you all the best.

You are basically outright attempting to accuse me of "not being real" here.

That's a pretty nasty accusation.

And why make these personal accusations toward others? In fact, it appears to me that your entire tactic is to question whether other people are listening to what you say. But I haven't heard you say anything that would justify Person A's constant claims that other people are "off topic" as well as Person A's accusation that anyone who disagrees with him that the Bible should be considered a verified credible and dependable historical account of history would be considered to be a flunk-out by Yale or Harvard.

How about addressing those points?

I'm taking the time to review this because for me the issue has never been about the reliability of the NT. That's an important and reasonable topic for discussion, but for me this thread is exactly on point as a discussion of how debate and discussion is conducted. Even in this thread I have concerns on that score:

I personally don't consider our conversation in this specific thread to even be a "debate". In fact, you brought up the concept of "listening", then you repeated back to me various things you believe I had said. I saw where you had jumped to some incorrect conclusions (similar to what you did with the intent of the word "screaming'), and so I explained to you where you had jumped to wrong conclusion.

Since you and I aren't having a debate in this thread I see no reason to ask you what you might have meant about specific points. In fact, unless you feel that I have misunderstood you, I really see no reason to ask you for further clarification on anything you have said.

Now let's look at a topic that perhaps you and I could discuss in more detail, or potentially even actually "debate"

You say:

I'm taking the time to review this because for me the issue has never been about the reliability of the NT.

Concerning that specific statement I would indeed have further questions to better understand what you are trying to say here. Because currently, as it is written I have absolutely no clue where you stand on that issue.

If we were debating on the reliability of the NT, my very first question to you would be to ask you where you stand on that question. Do you think the NT is "reliable" or not? And if so, in what way? Reliable as a verified credible historical account of events that occurred in the life of Jesus?

You and I could certainly have a discussion or debate about that if you like. But it seems to me right now all you are attempting to do in this thread is to discredit me as a person who refuses to listen even if only from blind sincere ignorance.

I totally reject that accusation.

I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find a debate opponent who is more than willing to hear you out concerning any position you might hold.

My position in general is that the Bible cannot be true, "as it is written".

If you want to claim that it is reliable, then I would ask you to explain in detail precisely what you mean by that. Reliable in what way?

Please note (for crystal clear clarity), I am not asking to debate with you on the topic of NT reliability in this thread.

All I am saying is that I would be willing to have a discussion or debate with you on that specific topic. If we do so, we should do it in a new thread entitled "Is the NT Reliable?"

Then we could focus in on that topic, and not stoop to making false accusations toward the other person "Not being Real", or being "Unwilling to Listen".

I would very much like to discuss with you on the question "Is the NT Reliable?" instead of engaging in cheap ad-hominems that are designed to try to discredit the other person.

Keep in mind Perterk, I haven't accused you of anything negative in this thread until possibly within this specific post itself where I pointed out that your accusation toward me that I'm "Not being Real", appears to me to be a totally dishonest attack on your behalf to attempt to discredit me and thus brush me off as being unworthy of honest communication.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm more than open to hearing your position on the "Reliability of the NT", and I would address every point you make about it. Including being totally open to listening to anything you believe I might have misunderstood about your position.

In fact, what I often find is that Christian apologists often claim that I'm not listening to their position when I'm offering to give them every opportunity imaginable to explain themselves to their heart's content.

What I see happening is that they typically become frustrated over the very obvious fact that they simply cannot defend the position they are attempting to maintain.

That can hardly be blamed on me for not being willing to listen.