What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Accepting Of Me

Yeah, online, it's easier to be all upfront and aggressive in debates, but I don't think I could ever act that way in real life. IRL, I tend to be more of the "I'd rather avoid any conflict at all" variety. Unless I'm debating my younger brother, then I'm all "bring it on, broski!"
 
questdriven said:
Yeah, online, it's easier to be all upfront and aggressive in debates, but I don't think I could ever act that way in real life. IRL, I tend to be more of the "I'd rather avoid any conflict at all" variety. Unless I'm debating my younger brother, then I'm all "bring it on, broski!"
Click to expand...

Well the internet can be a training ground for real debates. For conflict avoidant people it's much easier to be aggressive on the internet, and maybe it'll help them to learn how to stand up for their own rights and opinions (or those of others) in the real world.
Fighting isn't always bad. It can be necessary sometimes, and it can be really enjoyable actually :yes. Just gotta learn how to do it in an appropriate and respectful way.
So it's absolutely not wrong to pick fights on the internet, but it's very important to use discretion about where/ what about/ with whom you pick your fights. Some people don't like debating because they feel like it is a conflict and we must accept that.

Why does the google chrome spell check mark "avoidant" as wrong?
 
Yeah, I think I learned a lot about debate from debating on the internet, actually. I used to do it all the time (on another site), and I used to get involved in really heated ones...and I used to contribute significantly to the heatedness, too. They were online debates and I was anywhere between 13 and 16 during those, so...yeah. xD
Over time I learned to control myself better and I think I ended up learning a lot about communication. Seemed like it all turned out to be a good experience, all things considered. (Although the "being on the computer every free hour of the day" part wasn't so good.)
 
Basically guys I don't like "discussions" that much. Discussion is in place of debate. If you remember I think it was the Do You Guys thread they said these forums are not debate forums. They are trying to brake the habit.
 
The Lounge doesn't have the "This is not a debate forum" hint written on it that some other forums have. But the description says it's for casual conversation. I'd interpret that like it's not a place intended for debating, but it's still somewhat up to our own discernment, and if a thread turns into a friendly debate that might still be alright. For some people debating is "casual conversation".
It's really a matter of using our discretion.
In a fellowship forum like the lounge we should have our discretion favor the side of fellowship and peace, unless we are really certain that the other user we're talking to won't mind a little discussion.
 
Every forum is NOT a debate forum! So we need to get rid of this mentality right now.
We need to respect where others are at in their spiritual walk. Not every member is battle worn, nor should they be required to be.
Click to expand...

This is from StoveBolts. And I totally agree with this. Just thought you'd all like to know from a moderator about this.
 
Personally I would regret if this forum would interdict debates altogether.
Those of us who like to debate, or who feel like scrutinising their own and others' views on things are important for our spiritual walk have the right that they are respected in regards to that, too.

I agree that we mustn't force debates on people that dislike them and respect that some forums are explicitley non-debate, and some topics are personal and sensitive and mustn't be used as a discussion starter.
But forcing harmony on those that do like them is equally wrong.

There are forums here that are labeled as debate forums, for example the apologetics forum (it even has two crossing swords as icon next to it!), the end times forum, politics, science (ya know, all those creationism vs evolution discussions...)
 
thank god I don't have debates in my church. I have learned that its ok to debate end times at times but often its more divisive then its worth.
 
It took me a while to realize how greatly apostle Paul valued peace. In resolving various life scenarios, in teaching gentiles, Paul is so much peace driven. Peace and love driven.
 
But as I said in the I'm Sorry thread, I am sorry that I ever forced you guys not to say what you want. You have the right to say what you want. I am not going to act like a mod anymore. It's not my nature.
 
jasoncran said:
thank god I don't have debates in my church. I have learned that its ok to debate end times at times but often its more divisive then its worth.
Click to expand...
Last sunday in after the service in my chruch I had a fight with another guy about European foreign politics in regards to Israel. We ended up yelling at each other, everyone was looking at us. :lol
Debating in church or cell groups is not uncommon here, but most of the time it's friendly and without yelling.

Jason you always seemed to be someone who enjoys to debate, so I'm surprised you're glad you don't have debates in church.
 
Claudya said:
Those of us who like to debate, or who feel like scrutinising their own and others' views on things are important for our spiritual walk have the right that they are respected in regards to that, too.

I agree that we mustn't force debates on people that dislike them and respect that some forums are explicitley non-debate, and some topics are personal and sensitive and mustn't be used as a discussion starter.
But forcing harmony on those that do like them is equally wrong.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong about debates. Paul and Peter debated, but they left these debates behind. They did not allow debates to separate the church.

If Peter and Paul decided that gentiles needed circumcision, we would circumcise.Why would not we? However this would not change our hearts either.

Circumcision would give a warm filling to Jews, but would confuse gentiles. Un-circumcision confuses Jews but gives a warm feeling to Gentiles.

Paul and Peter knew, as I think, that this is an insignificant question, whichever way they decide, and Peter decided to let Paul's suggestion to go ahead, as I think.

You see?
 
to everything there must be temperance. I have debated in person and I don't mind doing it if I feel the person is reasonable and open. I know a man and only him who is well beyond me in Hebrew and greek studies and other things on the bible. I have done it at drill and last time at ft.knox. I have my reasons why I limited some of that at the unit. I do it there at times but I must be careful as some might that as bad and see that I am well overboard. that has happened. it also went south one time with a futurist that I was to work with if we deployed.

that and I can if I am encouraged in bible study in person. a bit well overzealous. my chaplain sometimes will ask my opinion on things that are grey. I will still oblidge him but on that note he knows me and knows when to stop me. on that note. he wasn't even a chaplain yet in my unit and I kinda pulled his chain when he asked a question. he asked does anyone have any deep theological questions . I have an hour with you guys and only 15 minutes have passed. so I stood up with a smirk, and said, what is calvanism. he knew I knew the answer. I justed wanted him to answer it to well waste time. he called me later a passive antagonist( the tail end or a donkey) we still laugh over that. it takes one to know one. I also don't debate as much as I used to on the creationist-evo arguments as I used in the science forum.
 
So, is there a wrong way to debate? And is it wrong for me to not like "discussion"? Of course I like a good "discussion" when we can come to a logical conclusion.
 
Danacovert82 said:
So, is there a wrong way to debate? And is it wrong for me to not like "discussion"? Of course I like a good "discussion" when we can come to a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

The wrong way would be personal attacks. Or generally bad style. Personal attacks or ridiculing the other side is the worst I could think of at the moment.
Some debates don't come to a conclusion because they are about an ambivalent topic.
It can still be fun to debate as intellectual sparring even when you're not interested in getting to a conclusion.
Think of it as a sparring match between two boxers that are good friends and fight against each other to improve their own skills or as a way to honour their friendship (practicing a hobby together, helping the other one get better, and so on). It doesn't matter who wins, the only thing that matters is that both gain something from the sparring.

And it's not wrong for you not to like discussions. You're entitled to that.
But it would be wrong if you'd try to keep everyone else from discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top