Debating Arguing Discussing The Gospel

[prisonchaplain]

30 years ago Josh McDowell wrote a book untitled Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It was an apologetic, offering a courtroom-style defense of the resurrection. Roughly 10-years ago McDowell told an audience of pastors he no longer employs this approach. Today, he speaks to young people of relationships. He talks about his own role as a father, and about how God, our Father, truly is a divine parent for us--the kind that will not fail us, as our earthly ones sometimes do.

So how much of our reticent to argue/debate the gospel a sign of the times--our own subconscious embrace of postmodernism, and how much is truly trying not to "cast pearls before swine?"

Perhaps a related question: What's the difference between debating, arguing, and conversing/discussing?

[StrawberryFields]

As I have said before I believe that discussing stop when one tries to convince the other that they are wrong and their way is right. I will argue many things but religion is very personal and people find their own truths with the gospel. How can another even remotely suggest that they might get away with that kind of tactic.

Instead of discussing what makes us different in the gospel, why can't we focus on what we find in common.

[CaptainTux]

That is one dry book.

I will not argue, but I will debate and gladly discuss and share Good News. You cannot Argue good news. Well, you could, I suppose, but it would no longer be good...but really rather tiring news proved right.....hm.

I believe the issue about debate is that we have forgotten what that means. In many ways, we have forgotten to teach children about the art of conversation. We never realized that communication would be replaced with smileys and LOL. We never knew that text messages would be more popular than compete sentences.

Debate is NOT arguing. Debate is a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. It is rather like a dance...something with structure like a box step or a waltz.

We fear offense and misconstrue meaning too often these days to have real debates. A real exchange of ideas requires two parties looking to express themselves and challenge each other as opposed to looking for gotchas.

[prisonchaplain]

So far I agree with everything you both have said. Sorry, no debate yet. :-)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

For me the key is the presence or absence of contention (or a combative spirit of anger). The only difference between discussing scriptures and Bible-bashing--in my opinion--is the introduction of contention into the mix. It's possible to tell someone, "You are incorrect," without being combative about it. It's quite rarer (but still possible) to receive such criticism without becoming combative in turn.

Then again, as PC said, sometimes it's not a matter of lacking evidence or coolness of demeanor that prevents a discussion, but one party's unwillingness to share beliefs they don't feel would be appreciated or received with enough respect.

[Traveler]

I believe that when one has been "converted" to a divine or everlasting truth that it is good and wise to share that truth with others. In our world any light that is manifested (good seed sown) a lie will counter it. As Jesus anciently testified he was opposed. There were two kinds of opposition. One was by experts in scripture that had different opinion of divine things. The other was by "worldly" temptations.

It is interesting to me that Jesus employed logic when confronted by opposition. It seems that his voice had two purposes.

1. To call his sheep - those interested in seeking and doing what was necessary to become a disciple. (Note the emphasis on doing and not hearing only)

2. A voice or warning and condemnation. A warning that failure to do what was necessary to become a disciple would result in everlasting consequences.

The Traveler

[CaptainTux]

I've been poking about the forums to see what I have missed the last few months and I see this topic as very pertinent. While I have been gone, there have been some ugly skirmishes on what is normally a great site.

In some respects, sarcasm has replaced civility, accusations and labels have replaced digging in making your position known in a respectful fashion, and debate with exchange of ideas has been replaced with arguments chock full of zingers.

Do not get me wrong, the whole neighborhood has not gone downhill, but I have seen some threads here with people getting attacked that I never thought would be accused of such things by normally rational people here.

When I got here, there was little to no us against them mentality and the exchanges have been fascinating and enriching and have done more than any other place in myu life to give me respect for the LDS and other denomination.

In other sites you have the invocation of Godwin's Law which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. " In the realm of religious sites, the law seems to be calling someone an agent of satan or some other label to avoid the discussion.

We need to get back to a point as a society where we can reasonably exchange thoughts and ideas regarding faith, politics, and other "taboo" matters. Without discussing these things and having our thoughts challenged, we never grow. Think of an arguments as war and a debate as excercise...or a sparring match with the tips on the swords and a scoring system.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll throw this added question into the mix: Generally speaking, the best "recruiters" are recent converts. They are excited about what they have discovered (what God has given them), and share it with innocence, love, and zeal.

Do you believe this is true (the newbies usually bring in more converts/investigators than long-timers)? What impact does this have on our discussion about arguing/discussing/debating?

[CaptainTux]

I think this is true. They may not have the Romans Road memorized or have read books on reaching unchurched Harry or Mary, but they have the innocence of being a new creature and the belief that through Him, anything is possible. They also do not know the rules of being a clone as good old Steve Taylor educated us about.

[Buzzyboy]

I think this is true. They may not have the Romans Road memorized or have read books on reaching unchurched Harry or Mary, but they have the innocence of being a new creature and the belief that through Him, anything is possible. They also do not know the rules of being a clone as good old Steve Taylor educated us about.

Try debating and/or arguing in any one of the priesthood classes. The only format in the Church is discussion/acceptance of the approved line.

[Outshined]

They also do not know the rules of being a clone as good old Steve Taylor educated us about.

Steve directed a movie, in case you didn't know. I checked it out this weekend and it was pretty good. http://www.amazon.com/Second-Chance-Steve-...7?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

I have most of his earlier musical work on my MP3 player. What a gift...

In other sites you have the invocation of Godwin's Law which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. " In the realm of religious sites, the law seems to be calling someone an agent of satan or some other label to avoid the discussion.

[CaptainTux]

Cool. I was wondering what he was doing with his life these days. My youth pastor used to HATE his music. Over the years I have befriended a former CCM musician. She and I have talked a few times about how sad it was that the Christian recording industry has a problem if you write lyrics that make someone think..as if the assumption is that they have no minds to understand symbolism. It is also sad to see how many of them are phoneys making a career off a gig. She was reticent to name names on the bogus ones, but had no issue speaking about who was real. She liked Steve. Nice to know I spent my money well.

Okay, back to the topic. Debate sharpens us and causes us to analyze our own belief structure. In many respects, you should write your theology in pencil and have a big eraser ready to go as you learn and grow. Apologetics and debate is one of those ways to learn IMHO.

[Outshined]

I agee, though I'd add that once it turns into an argument, neither side is listening to the other.

[Traveler]

I'll throw this added question into the mix: Generally speaking, the best "recruiters" are recent converts. They are excited about what they have discovered (what God has given them), and share it with innocence, love, and zeal.

Do you believe this is true (the newbies usually bring in more converts/investigators than long-timers)? What impact does this have on our discussion about arguing/discussing/debating?

I would say that newbies tend to keep things simple and speak with the spirit. I think it is the scholars that want to prove stuff with logic and scriptures. If religion does not allow a person to "feel" better about themselves and G-d, what value does it really bring. I think the concept that I am a better person for what I have learned give more hope than blowing anyone away with logic - that at the end of the day leaves you still wondering if G-d has really made a difference.

The Traveler

[Outshined]

I would say that newbies tend to keep things simple and speak with the spirit. I think it is the scholars that want to prove stuff with logic and scriptures. If religion does not allow a person to "feel" better about themselves and G-d, what value does it really bring. I think the concept that I am a better person for what I have learned give more hope than blowing anyone away with logic - that at the end of the day leaves you still wondering if G-d has really made a difference.

The Traveler

Very wise indeed. B)

[Dr T]

If religion does not allow a person to "feel" better about themselves and G-d, what value does it really bring.

Your premise is that it MUST make you feel better to bring value? I'd agree-It probably does produce a sense of pleasure but there are a lot of people who feel good about their religion or lack there of and I have a hard time agreeing that that is it's main purpose.

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Initially, the gospel has to make converts feel better. The forgiveness of sins makes us feel "clean" "light" "free." As we grow in our faith, times will come when we must actually sacrifice--"take a loss" for our faith.

So, I agree. Babes in Christ have the passion, and the perspective of one who "once was lost, but now is found, was blind, but now can see."

[Dr T]

Hi P.C.,

Yes but what of the "what a wretched man am I" thought because of sinfulness? Does that make someone feel good?

[prisonchaplain]

Hi P.C.,

Yes but what of the "what a wretched man am I" thought because of sinfulness? Does that make someone feel good?

Confronting reality is not always pleasant, no. On the other hand, when you know you are sick, and the doctor says, "Yes, you are. Here's your problem, and here are the options for treatment." It's hard, because what you've know is true, really is. On the other hand, it's a relief not to have to guess anymore.

So, no, having a relationship with God is not always about "happy happy joy joy." However, the initial conversion almost always brings an ultimate sense of peace, relief, lightness, and cleansing.

Those unwilling to walk through the difficulty of facing reality (I am a sinner, I have disappointed my Creator) often will not convert. Sadly, some such folk have grown up in and remain in church.

[Traveler]

Hi P.C.,

Yes but what of the "what a wretched man am I" thought because of sinfulness? Does that make someone feel good?

I think we are talking about the new person changed through ideas that now give them place not just within the universe but as a being that G-d has in the palm of his hand. I do not think the "what a wretched man am I" converts very many. I think it is more "what a wretched man was I" but the great healer has brought me to a new understanding and vision. I think it is the joy not the wretchedness that is the light of conversion that shines as a beacon to the world.

When I travel I would rather stop for a night with those filled with joy. Someone else may seek out the wretched - but not me.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Yes, I see that portion of it. All however need to realize why they are before anything can progress. That was my point.

Dr. T

That should be "who" instead of "why"