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]

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

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

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?

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

Right?

If not, then just what is a Christian?

[fewwillfindit]

Aww crud. Sorry guys. While I was typing, you guys were posting and I didn't see it. I'm reading it all now. I hope I wasn't being redundant. When I started typing, post 65 was the last post. Looks like I missed 5 or 6 posts. Reading now...

[Darias]

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

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 inherantly sinful, thus the need for a Savior. A literal savior. Not a nice metaphor for the enlightenment of mankind or "christ consciousness" or some kind of bunk like that.

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?

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

Right?

If not, then just what is a Christian?

And what on earth does your short-list have to do with Biblical inerrancy or the belief that God is omnibenevolent? The very two factors for which I was deemed not a true Christian, not a brother in Christ, and that I gave a bad name for "real" Christians.

Is that fair? Are those two reasons grounds enough to judge someone to eternal torment?

And you know a literal hell MUST be implied when a fundamentalist condemns someone, because they literally believe it exists and people go there to burn forever.

He claimed that I wasn't saved for those two reasons and those two reasons alone -- he may have had alternative factors in mind but he did not list them.

And this is why I think it's hypocritical to unanimously agree with him #1 because Wine-pusher believes in Evolution, believes Genesis is largely metaphorical, and try as he may, there's no way that can fly under the radar as "believing in Biblical inerrancy"

And there are many many Christians who believe that God is love.

But for those two reasons, I "give Christians" a bad name -- and for those two reasons I'm hellbound.

And since those accusations are "firmly rooted" in Biblical truth, everyone gets upset when people think it's a personal attack.

Well it was, and it is unfounded --- and it's not being extended to anyone else, even though many Christians (some of whom have posted here in this thread) don't believe in a literal interpretation of every verse, and do believe that God is omnibenevolent.

And what about them fruits? the "proof" that I was hellbound? Did he list any? No...

But I did.

On what grounds does any man have the right to claim that I bare bad fruit??? Have any of you here ever seen me hate anyone here? Be impatient? lose my self control? Bare false witness? Disrespect someone personally?

No. You haven't.

What does Jesus say? The man we call Lord, what does he say?

Judge not, that you be not judged.For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

And yet you guys call him Lord, Lord, and say "Lets ignore this passage because Darias is a Liberal and it's okay. Let's accuse Otseng of unfair moderating because he refuses to side with us in our judgment of our fake brother!"



EDIT:

I have been labeled unsaved, essentially condemned to hell for things some of you believe! Forget the short list, I'm going to hell because the Bible says God is love and I believe that He is. I'm going to hell somehow because I believe science accurately describes our universe.... yeah, totally fair. Thanks guys.

[fewwillfindit]

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

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 inherantly sinful, thus the need for a Savior. A literal savior. Not a nice metaphor for the enlightenment of mankind or "christ consciousness" or some kind of bunk like that.

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?

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

Right?

If not, then just what is a Christian?

And what on earth does your short-list have to do with Biblical inerrancy or the belief that God is omnibenevolent? The very two factors for which I was deemed not a true Christian, not a brother in Christ, and that I gave a bad name for "real" Christians.

Is that fair? Are those two reasons grounds enough to judge someone to eternal torment?

And you know a literal hell MUST be implied when a fundamentalist condemns someone, because they literally believe it exists and people go there to burn forever.

He claimed that I wasn't saved for those two reasons and those two reasons alone -- he may have had alternative factors in mind but he did not list them.

And this is why I think it's hypocritical to unanimously agree with him #1 because Wine-pusher believes in Evolution, believes Genesis is largely metaphorical, and try as he may, there's no way that can fly under the radar as "believing in Biblical inerrancy"

And there are many many Christians who believe that God is love.

But for those two reasons, I "give Christians" a bad name -- and for those two reasons I'm hellbound.

And since those accusations are "firmly rooted" in Biblical truth, everyone gets upset when people think it's a personal attack.

Well it was, and it is unfounded --- and it's not being extended to anyone else, even though many Christians (some of whom have posted here in this thread) don't believe in a literal interpretation of every verse, and do believe that God is omnibenevolent.

And what about them fruits? the "proof" that I was hellbound? Did he list any? No...

But I did.

On what grounds does any man have the right to claim that I bare bad fruit??? Have any of you here ever seen me hate anyone here? Be impatient? lose my self control? Bare false witness? Disrespect someone personally?

No. You haven't.

What does Jesus say? The man we call Lord, what does he say?

Judge not, that you be not judged.For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

And yet you guys call him Lord, Lord, and say "Lets ignore this passage because Darias is a Liberal and it's okay. Let's accuse Otseng of unfair moderating because he refuses to side with us in our judgment of our fake brother!"

I'll do my best to address this, but first, can you address what you quoted from me? Just be straight-up.

[WinePusher]

He claimed that I wasn't saved for those two reasons and those two reasons alone -- he may have had alternative factors in mind but he did not list them.

Is this addressed at me?

And this is why I think it's hypocritical to unanimously agree with him #1 because Wine-pusher believes in Evolution, believes Genesis is largely metaphorical, and try as he may, there's no way that can fly under the radar as "believing in Biblical inerrancy."

Why don't you stop mentioning me indirectly in your conversations with other people and debate me directly. I laid out my position in two posts, are you purposefully neglicting them so that you can continue miscontruing my beliefs in order to cite me for support of your position?

[Darias]

I'll do my best to address this, but first, can you address what you quoted from me? Just be straight-up.

Are you sure you want to hear my answers? The last three, four times I was "straight-up" the discussion was canceled due to perceived "pointlessness."

In fact every time I've been "straight-up" about things I notice about Christianity, I get a lot of flak -- people get insulted and personally hurt as if I slandered them. My arguments apparently make people cry and get upset -- those things are never my objectives in the least.

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.

[Darias]

He claimed that I wasn't saved for those two reasons and those two reasons alone -- he may have had alternative factors in mind but he did not list them.

Is this addressed at me?

And this is why I think it's hypocritical to unanimously agree with him #1 because Wine-pusher believes in Evolution, believes Genesis is largely metaphorical, and try as he may, there's no way that can fly under the radar as "believing in Biblical inerrancy."

Why don't you stop mentioning me indirectly in your conversations with other people and debate me directly. I laid out my position in two posts, are you purposefully neglicting them so that you can continue miscontruing my beliefs in order to cite me for support of your position?

1.) No, I was referring to what AmazingJesusIs said, not you.

2.) The reply was to Fewwillfindit, but I also read your reply and I just kinda indirectly answered both.

3.) I'm not trying to avoid your posts, but I'm trying to defend myself and the fact that what AmazingJesusis said is unfair -- and that it is hypocritical for everyone to agree with AmazingJesusis' condemnation BECAUSE the reasons he proclaimed I was unsaved was because 1. I believe God is omnibenevolent, and 2. Because I do not believe every single verse is inerrant.

I drew upon your example because it is the most obvious one. You may not believe in omnibenevolence, (I assumed you did, so I'm mistaken -- I thought most Christians did). However, you do believe in Evolution -- and while the Bible doesn't mention evolution (how could it?) It does say that man was created out of clay and Eve from a rib, and that animals were created in kinds and that each bare their own kind. The idea of evolution is not only not present, it's contradictory to what the Bible literally says.

And on that basis alone, I'm sure many would label you a false Christian -- yet it was because of this basis that you decided to agree with AmazingJesusIs.

I may read the Bible a little less literally than you. I may find a bit more of it less historical than you do, but how is that any different from your position relative to Otseng's, or AmazingJesusIs' ?

The only reason you not only didn't say anything (you don't have to defend anyone but yourself, despite the fact that you are a moderator) is because I'm liberal -- one of "The left" one of "Them" -- others who posts things you don't like in other threads unrelated to this one (which you mentioned earlier on in this thread as some sort of justification for the collective consensus against me).

You've tried to make the intent of my original question of this thread to be about fundamentalists v. liberals etc... it wasn't -- it was about debate and respect -- of which I was granted neither because I don't agree with a popular doctrine.

[WinePusher]

Thank you for the clarification. Today, I've spent an abnormally unhealthy amount of time typing posts on here and have neglicted to do the stuff that keeps my life running, so I might not get back to this thread quickly.

.)I drew upon your example because it is the most obvious one. You may not believe in omnibenevolence, (I assumed you did, so I'm mistaken -- I thought most Christians did). However, you do believe in Evolution -- and while the Bible doesn't mention evolution (how could it?) It does say that man was created out of clay and Eve from a rib, and that animals were created in kinds and that each bare their own kind. The idea of evolution is not only not present, it's contradictory to what the Bible literally says.

And on that basis alone, I'm sure many would label you a false Christian -- yet it was because of this basis that you decided to agree with AmazingJesusIs.

When you refer to "omnibenevolence" you mean the complete and absolute goodness of God? Has anyone rejected or challenged that? If AmazingJesus has, then I vehemently disagree with him. Here's my opinion. I condemn the "false christian" stuff because it is not our place to judge others, a virture that many often forget. However, I don't see any problem with someone doubting a person's legitmacy as a Christian because of their beliefs. That is basically what I saw AmazingJesus doing. And yes, evolution is a point we an somewhat agree on. Does it undermine biblical inerrancy, no, and I laid out my reasons for that in an earlier post. And yes, I don't believe everything the Bible says, however I believe most of it and have laid out a criteria for how I discern this:

-The extraordinary measure of the claim/story. If the story is very extraordinary, then it is probably metaphorical.
-The weight it holds on the Christian Faith. For example, the resurrection is just as extraordinary a claim as the global flood story, but Christianity is based on the resurrection story and not the global flood story. The resurrection holds more wieght and meaning.
-If the story can be attested to with some outside reference and objective evidence. Jesus' life, and his resurrection can. The global flood story, for the most part, cannot. The only extra-biblical references to teh flood is the Gilgamesh Epic, which is also considered mythical.

I may read the Bible a little less literally than you. I may find a bit more of it less historical than you do, but how is that any different from your position relative to Otseng's, or AmazingJesusIs' ?

I am ignorant of how you view the Bible. I asked you about that in another post. What is your view of the Bible and Jesus Christ, did he actually do miracles and rise from the dead, is there any truth the reports of miracles in the Bible?

The only reason you not only didn't say anything (you don't have to defend anyone but yourself, despite the fact that you are a moderator) is because I'm liberal -- one of "The left" one of "Them" -- others who posts things you don't like in other threads unrelated to this one (which you mentioned earlier on in this thread as some sort of justification for the collective consensus against me).

I'm not a moderator. I also don't have any personal vendetta againist you. I disagree with the positions you seem to have taken and have challenged you on them. I also have said time after time that I don't support the rhetoric AmazingJesus is throwing out, but have no problem with his underlying point which was a challenge to your assumptions.

You've tried to make the intent of my original question of this thread to be about fundamentalists v. liberals etc... it wasn't -- it was about debate and respect -- of which I was granted neither because I don't agree with a popular doctrine.

Fine, I'll take your word for it.

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

Thank you for the clarification. Today, I've spent an abnormally unhealthy amount of time typing posts on here and have neglicted to do the stuff that keeps my life running, so I might not get back to this thread quickly.

I can relate. This week I've spent even more time than usual debating here and it's cut into my study time. I must be honest and say that the past few days here have been a tad stressful.


[font=Impact]2.[/font]

I drew upon your example because it is the most obvious one. You may not believe in omnibenevolence, (I assumed you did, so I'm mistaken -- I thought most Christians did). However, you do believe in Evolution -- and while the Bible doesn't mention evolution (how could it?) It does say that man was created out of clay and Eve from a rib, and that animals were created in kinds and that each bare their own kind. The idea of evolution is not only not present, it's contradictory to what the Bible literally says.

And on that basis alone, I'm sure many would label you a false Christian -- yet it was because of this basis that you decided to agree with AmazingJesusIs.

When you refer to "omnibenevolence" you mean the complete and absolute goodness of God? Has anyone rejected or challenged that? If AmazingJesus has, then I vehemently disagree with him.

This is what he said:

You deem some things false, because they don't make you feel good, or they don't conform to the omnibenevolent God you have created in your mind. Have you ever read the Old Testament books describing what God instructed His people to do? He made them kill every single person in a city... to leave nothing standing. He told them to kill the woman, the children, and even the livestock. Have you ever read what He allowed Satan to do to Job? He let Satan kill Job's children, destroy his live stock... it's some pretty serious stuff, but you claim that God is omnibenevolent, when in fact He's not.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )

[font=Impact]3.[/font]

Here's my opinion. I condemn the "false christian" stuff because it is not our place to judge others, a virture that many often forget. However, I don't see any problem with someone doubting a person's legitmacy as a Christian because of their beliefs. That is basically what I saw AmazingJesus doing.

This sounds like: "I don't think it was right that he employed ad-hominem, and its wrong for Christians to judge -- but I agree with what he said."

Again this is what he said:

You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse.

You have mislead yourself. It's not the fact that you're not a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist, it's that you're not a Christian, and I know you're not a Christian because you claim that Paul's texts shouldn't be taken as real Scripture, and that you pick and choose your pieces of the Holy Bible to suit your own needs. That's not what a Disciple of Christ does. You make a bad name for us true converts.

The reason why "fellow" Christians don't debate with you is because we are not "fellow" Christians. We know we are Christians, and your belief that the Bible is false deems you un-Christian. It is without reason to debate theology with non-Christians.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )

And deeming me unsaved, aka hell-bound for what reason? Two reasons:

1. His view that my belief in Omnibenevolence is unBiblical.

2. His view that a Christian must believe every single verse as without error or he is false.


And yet you say you agree with his "legitimate reasons," AKA, you don't think I'm saved because of those things -- even though we both essentially share those same two points of view?



[font=Impact]4.[/font]

And yes, evolution is a point we an somewhat agree on. Does it undermine biblical inerrancy, no, and I laid out my reasons for that in an earlier post. And yes, I don't believe everything the Bible says,

1.) We somewhat agree on in that you invoke ID and a supernatural repairman to explain gaps or "irreducibly complex" things, some of which have been explained already. But you still believe things evolved and that the earth is old correct?

2.) Of course it undermines Biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy means "without factual error." The Bible is factually wrong when it comes to the historic realities of biology -- plain and simple. The only way you can claim that Evolution doesn't violate the doctrine is if you attribute every factually incorrect thing mentioned in the Bible to "metaphor" -- metaphor which was once believed to be literal truth. You know the story of Galileo, so I don't need to tell it.

Maybe you can still cling to Biblical inerrancy by technicality, personal definitions, or whatever -- but I cannot. I don't know how you do it -- but I can't.

And for that reason, I've been deemed "unsaved" and as a person who "gives a bad name" for "true" believers.



[font=Impact]5.[/font]

however I believe most of it

Well according to AmazingJesusIs, "most of it" ain't good enough.

You can't be a true Christian who has been saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah and believe that Bible is not true and that Scripture is errant, whether it's all sixty-six books, or one verse.
_____
( "How pointless is debate?" Page 2, Post 14 )

[font=Impact]6.[/font]

and have laid out a criteria for how I discern this:

-The extraordinary measure of the claim/story. If the story is very extraordinary, then it is probably metaphorical.
-The weight it holds on the Christian Faith. For example, the resurrection is just as extraordinary a claim as the global flood story, but Christianity is based on the resurrection story and not the global flood story. The resurrection holds more wieght and meaning.
-If the story can be attested to with some outside reference and objective evidence. Jesus' life, and his resurrection can. The global flood story, for the most part, cannot. The only extra-biblical references to teh flood is the Gilgamesh Epic, which is also considered mythical.

1.) And that's Biblically inerrant how? Are you not "picking and choosing" which miracles you want to believe in -- as I have been accused of doing?

2.) Plus, how does "it's critical to Christianity" dismiss the fact that they are pretty extraordinary miracles? It seems to me that you are unwilling to label them metaphor or myth (as you did with supernatural events in the Old Testament, and as some liberal Christians do today) because questioning them -- or even pondering the mere possibility that they didn't take place -- endangers your doctrinal beliefs (to the point where you probably think you wouldn't retain your faith at all if somehow such miracles could be just myths).



[font=Impact]7.[/font]

I may read the Bible a little less literally than you. I may find a bit more of it less historical than you do, but how is that any different from your position relative to Otseng's, or AmazingJesusIs' ?

I am ignorant of how you view the Bible. I asked you about that in another post. What is your view of the Bible and Jesus Christ, did he actually do miracles and rise from the dead, is there any truth the reports of miracles in the Bible?

1.) If you are ignorant of how I view the Bible then why did you so quickly agree with his message (albeit not the way it was delivered) ?

2.) I don't know if Christ actually did miracles and raised people from the dead. I know that the only way he could have done that is via some sort of divine intervention, etc. I am not saying that He didn't. However, I don't think those are necessarily relevant to Him being our spiritual Mediator and Savior -- and if somehow such things were ever proven to be myth, it would not void the possibility that He is of a divine nature and has a divine role.



[font=Impact]8.[/font]

The only reason you not only didn't say anything (you don't have to defend anyone but yourself, despite the fact that you are a moderator) is because I'm liberal -- one of "The left" one of "Them" -- others who posts things you don't like in other threads unrelated to this one (which you mentioned earlier on in this thread as some sort of justification for the collective consensus against me).

I'm not a moderator.

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

[Moderator]

Must be a forum glitch?



[font=Impact]9.[/font]

I also don't have any personal vendetta againist you. I disagree with the positions you seem to have taken and have challenged you on them. I also have said time after time that I don't support the rhetoric AmazingJesus is throwing out, but have no problem with his underlying point which was a challenge to your assumptions.

You've tried to make the intent of my original question of this thread to be about fundamentalists v. liberals etc... it wasn't -- it was about debate and respect -- of which I was granted neither because I don't agree with a popular doctrine.

Fine, I'll take your word for it.

Thanks.

[otseng]

stir the pot for no apparent reason?

This I did attribute to you since it was only the last part that he specifically mentioned your name.

But no warning there. I guess people can personally attack others as long as they agree with you, huh.

I'm already allowing this thread some freedom.

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? 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. Is this not stirring the post for no apparent reason?

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.