Christians, preach the Gospel. Do not debate.

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Shaluach
OK, Joe. I'll make this as quick as possible.

Basically it is the tone of the person that illustrates if they are interested in an honest discussion or a debate.

To me, discussion is respectful and for the purpose of understanding differences of opinion. A discussion is like sitting down and just having a good conversation about something even though you may view it differently.

It is clear someone is only looking to debate when everything they say is provocative, trying to get a reaction out of someone. Another sign of debate is they are being insulting and mocking of someone's views. They are not interested in a good conversation. They just want to ridicule the other person and their views. A debate can also be very rigid. A lot of online debaters like to take what someone says point by point and attempt to dismantle and demolish what they are saying.

As I said, debate is all about the ego and "winning." Discussion is about helping someone understand your point and you understanding theirs, even if you don't agree in the end.

Basically when someone engages you you can usually tell by the way they talk/type what direction they are heading. Do they care about reaching a mutual understanding or do they only seek to ridicule. Are they being polite and asking genuine questions or are they condescending and only trying to illustrate why your views are "absurd"?

This is why I disagree with you that debate and discussion are the same thing. They carry two totally different tones. And again I say look to 2 Timothy 2:14-16

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly."

Paul says to warn people about "quarreling about words." That's debate. He says it is of no value and ruins those who listen to it. We are to "correctly handle the word of truth" and "avoid godless chatter." Finally he warns that doing so will make those who do so "become more and more ungodly."

It's really quite simple.

Hope this has answered your inquiry.

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a major break through.

Thanks for that response, but why didn’t you give me that response, straight of the bat, from page 1?

Allow me to answer that… by your own reasoning, you were reluctant to do so, because you thought, I was looking for a debate, (by your own definition). When in reality, I was looking to discuss it, by your own definition of discussion i.e. to respectively discuss a disagreement, which is how you described it yourself.

Don’t get me wrong though, I still see debate and discussion as being the same things…

…but can you see the light now?

Can you see what I’m trying to point out above, And why none of this was pointless?

Can you see it?

- JC

Christians shall not be entangled in debate of false accusations on their faith for they abide in the living god within them that jesus merged with, IAM. What would JESUS DO?

Yours in the Peace of the Grove

Originally posted by Joecroft

Originally posted by Bone

If it still doesn't sink in, reply to this post and I will offer further proof.

But there are like 4 other posters on this thread now, who agree with me, in that there is no difference, between debate and discussion.

Well I'm not going to go back and find all 4, but if I recall correctly.... you managed to get a witch and someone who said "lucifer rules" to agree with you.

Congratulations on your victory.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

War, devestation, strife, starvation, pestilence, civil unrest, social upheaval, like the 4 horsemen are already loose.

When has it been any different? As soon as more than one "family" group comes into contact with another that holds different values or has different knowledge or resources, you get strife.

The state of the World has not changed. It's just there are more of us to witness it now.

I pray for a truly "new age", the peace and plenty that this world CAN provide ("on earth as it is in heaven") if only the PEOPLE walking on it would cooperate and help one another, selflessly and with care....treating others the way they would like to be treated.
THAT is actually Christ's message.

reply to post by shaluach



OK, regarding discussion vs debate, I’m going to attempt to show using some of your past posts how/why there is a fine line between debate, and a discussion, and why I don’t separate the 2.

But one thing I do agree with, in your OP, is that when a debate, or heated discussion, just continues and continues, to be condescending and negative, then IMO, it’s time to either move on, or at least change direction, or your approach.

Originally posted by Shaluach
Sinny, I merely point out what Scripture says. And no it's not about just regurgitating. Again, there's a line between discussion and debate. Discussion should be the means to reach understanding.

You make the distinction above, that discussion should be the means to reach understanding, which I completely agree with btw…But, understanding can also be reached through, debates…

Originally posted by Shaluach
As you can see it has nothing to do with debate but instead with explanation.

And again people can also explain things during a debate or a heated discussion.

Originally posted by Shaluach
Discussion is designed to respectfully exchange ideas and possibly reach a mutual understanding. Debate is for nothing more than feeding the ego and attempting to discredit one's viewpoint.

People can reach an understanding, through debate as well as a polite, or heated discussion.

And this might not seem like it, but people can also stroke their own egos, in polite discussions.

Are you starting to see that fine line yet?

And here’s something else to think about. If you/anyone perceives someone as being negative or condescending, when there not… then if they have your stance, then they’re not going to engage the person any further. Which means one person thinks it’s a debate, but the other party, is still in discussion mode. And if that’s the case, then how can the discussion be defined… in short, it’s a complex, two way process.

I mean, just look at the conversation early on, between you and I, on this thread. Very early on, I thought you were being negative and condescending (still do actually, but we’ve moved past that now) and if I’d taken your stance, outlined in your OP, then the discussion would have ended right there.

And the ironic twists to it all, apart from being told I’m a 100%, by yourself and another poster, is that we were both basing things from our own perception, of how the other was acting, which is one of the main reasons, I don’t separate debate from discussion. And something else to think about, is that someone’s general bad demeanor, may be just an unfortunate natural part, of their charm lol, and character/personality.

So summing up, constant condescension, and negativity from the other party, is a sure sign that it’s time to move on, just like those scriptures and your OP suggests. But for me, all that comes under the banner of both debate and heated/discussion and IMO we should at least try to give someone the benefit of the doubt, before making that call.


- JC

reply to post by Bone75

Originally posted by Bone75
Well I'm not going to go back and find all 4, but if I recall correctly.... you managed to get a witch and someone who said "lucifer rules" to agree with you.

Congratulations on your victory.

Well, unlike you, their conduct has been fine, and they haven’t tried to misrepresent one of my earlier posts, by taking it out of context, and then trying to make it look, like I was saying something that I wasn’t; when I had already clearly defined, what I was saying, in my further posts, with the OP, and in one of my replies to you!

But hey, I wasn’t checking their credentials, but the content of their posts.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
But there are like 4 other posters on this thread now, who agree with me, in that there is no difference, between debate and discussion

Not to butt in, but that doesn't matter because there are those who also agree that there is a difference between debate and discussion.

reply to post by Joecroft


Well as I said there is a difference between the two. In a debate at least one of the people desire to mock and tear apart the other person's views. In discussion it is mutually respectful and designed to reach an understanding of differences.

Originally posted by wildtimes

When has it been any different?

I've heard this argument often, especially when discussing "disasters" that fit End Times prophecies. The problem is there is no time in history when all these multiple prophecies were being fulfilled simultaneously.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
Do you have his own words in his own handwriting?
No?

People.wrote.it.down.on.his.behalf

So no, not in his own handwriting, but hey, who knows, maybe some of the texts were based on some things Jesus wrote down himself, and maybe they just no longer exist, in original form.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Then....you "normally quote" only hearsay. "He said" stuff. The man did not leave any of his own written words.

But how do you know that, for sure?


- JC

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Shaluach
Not to butt in, but that doesn't matter because there are those who also agree that there is a difference between debate and discussion.

But for a while back there, I was the only person on the thread, with that different opinion, until the other 4 posters showed up. That’s the only reason I have pointed it out.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

People.wrote.it.down.on.his.behalf

Um..duh? No need to get hostile and uppity.

So no, not in his own handwriting, but hey, who knows, maybe some of the texts were based on some things Jesus wrote down himself, and maybe they just no longer exist, in original form.

Yup, maybe he did. But the chroniclers tell the story differently from one another ....and a long time after he died. By all accounts he was mostly speaking against corruption, exploitation, greed, and selfishness....trying to spread the word of loving one another.

Everything.else.is.extrapolation. NONE of those writers who are included and "credited" with writing their respective books of the Bible KNEW HIM personally. Paul saw a political opportunity and took it. The Gnostic gospels are likely more accurate renditions...possibly copies of works written by those who DID know him...but even so, those accounts are filtered through their eyes and ears, and based entirely on how they responded to what he said to them.

I doubt the man walked all over the place repeating the same tired lines over and over. Communication is a personal thing. Presuming he was skilled at it, he would've known how to deliver the message to the hearer by tweaking the way he explained it...
therefore, it is reasonable to think that each living person hears the message uniquely. Since he's not here to clarify, all we have is a bunch of third-hand descriptions of him by people with limited horizons. We can seek private communing with him in Spirit, and if we feel we received a response, it will have been a unique experience to everyone else's.

Hence, it is an individual relationship -- there's no recipe for it.

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Shaluach
Well as I said there is a difference between the two. In a debate at least one of the people desire to mock and tear apart the other person's views. In discussion it is mutually respectful and designed to reach an understanding of differences.

Well, in discussions your generally trying to change your opponents views also, which is equivalent to tearing them down IMO, the only difference, is that your attempting to do it, in a polite manner.


And again, you seem to be equating debate, with just mocking, when debate can be so much more than just that. And like I said above, reaching an understanding of differences, can also happen through heated debate. And by definition, if you disagree with someone, on any topic, then aren’t you also mocking their position, to a certain extent?


So again, why are they different?


I guess we can agree to disagree...


- JC

Originally posted by wildtimes
Yup, maybe he did. But the chroniclers tell the story differently from one another ....and a long time after he died.

The details of the stories aren't all that different. And they were written within the lifetimes of the Disciples. If there were discrepancies and falsehoods they would have been challenged and corrected.

Originally posted by wildtimes
NONE of those writers who are included and "credited" with writing their respective books of the Bible KNEW HIM personally.

How do you know that?

Originally posted by wildtimes
Paul saw a political opportunity and took it.

A political opportuity? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. How was a persecuted small religious group a political opportunity? And boy what an opportunity. He was incarcerated and executed by the State.

Originally posted by wildtimes
The Gnostic gospels are likely more accurate renditions...possibly copies of works written by those who DID know him

How do you know that?

Originally posted by wildtimes
I doubt the man walked all over the place repeating the same tired lines over and over.

Why?

Originally posted by Joecroft


Well, in discussions your generally trying to change your opponents views also, which is equivalent to tearing them down IMO, the only difference, is that your attempting to do it, in a polite manner.

No. I've had many discussions and it was never to "tear down" my "opponents" view points.

Originally posted by Joecroft
And by definition, if you disagree with someone, on any topic, then aren’t you also mocking their position, to a certain extent?

Absolutely not. Disagreeing isn't mocking. Mocking is mocking. You can disagree with someone and not mock them. I mean come on. Let's be serious here.

Yeah we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by shaluach


My thoughts and current beliefs are based on what I have studied for decades. I also reserve the right to "change my mind", but for now, I feel my personal research has been thorough (though by no means exhaustive -- there's more to learn than can be learned in one lifetime).

I suggest that if these things are unknown to you, you explore them. Paul was absolutely politically minded...

We have no written ORIGINAL accounts -- only copies of copies of stories heard.

To learn more, a good place to start and an entertaining read to boot, is Robert Wright's The Evolution of God. Highly recommend it for an objective look at the development of the Abrahamic religions, and those who have manipulated it to suit their needs/wishes.

reply to post by shaluach

I've heard this argument often, especially when discussing "disasters" that fit End Times prophecies. The problem is there is no time in history when all these multiple prophecies were being fulfilled simultaneously.

This is a ridiculous claim. There have been people all over the globe for tens of thousands of years, experiencing their own plagues, disasters, floods, volcanic explosions, famines, etc.

You are mistaking global information sharing with facts. We only know about all of these things going on now due to technology. In Jesus' day, only local events were commonly known. News came slowly...no faster than a donkey could walk...for centuries...
Now, you can know about it before it affects you, if it ever does. You seem to have a very limited knowledge of world history; I encourage you to look further into it. Archaeology, anthropology, world religions and traditions are good things to study. So are history chronicles, but one must keep in mind that history is generally written by the victors and will be biased.

The more we discover "facts on the ground" through exploration, and the more we "connect the dots", the more we can see the bigger picture.

Originally posted by wildtimes


Paul was absolutely politically minded...

Yeah, sorry, but that's not what you said. You said:

Paul saw a political opportunity and took it.

Which still leaves my points. A political opportuity? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. How was a persecuted small religious group a political opportunity? And boy what an opportunity. He was incarcerated and executed by the State.

You are claiming that he did what he did to gain politically. He did not gain politically and it would be absurd for you or him to think that he would gain politically by joining an already established small religious group, and one that was persecuted and being hunted and killed.

Originally posted by wildtimes

This is a ridiculous claim. There have been people all over the globe for tens of thousands of years, experiencing their own plagues, disasters, floods, volcanic explosions, famines, etc.

Um. No it's not. Show me one other period in history where so many prophecies are happening simultaneously.

You are mistaking global information sharing with facts. We only know about all of these things going on now due to technology. In Jesus' day, only local events were commonly known. News came slowly...no faster than a donkey could walk...for centuries...

That's an argument from ignorance. You are saying that these things have happened, but that we don't know about it because it wasn't documented or passed around as fast.

So I guess it's safe to say, like so many others who have claimed that these things have happened throughout history, when challenged on that point, that you will produce no evidence for such a claim.

And, no, my knowledge of world history is not "very limited." If all you are going to offer are ad hominems then I'm afraid our discussion is over.

History being written by the victors has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

reply to post by shaluach

That's an argument from ignorance. You are saying that these things have happened, but that we don't know about it because it wasn't documented or passed around as fast.

What?!! These things HAVE happened, all over the globe, since forever! We DO know about them now, based on archaeology and the discovery of evidence/chronicles...at the time Jesus lived, his contemporaries were unaware of what was going on in distant populations.

You think only the Bible authors had "prophecies"? Wow. Know anything about shamans? Tribal elders? The oracle of Delphi?

From my perspective, the conversation is over due to your argumentative attitude. Arrogance and rudeness are a turn-off, and I have no interest in wasting my time with you.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you are offensive and attacking me. You know NOTHING about me, or what I have learned, and clearly are not open to learning what you don't know. I want to know more, every day I learn more.

Try it, it's very enlightening.