Arguing vs Debating vs Discussing

I dont mean to intrude upon your time, this kinda became longer than I thought. Answer to dont answer at your leisure. Thanks for your time! </font>[/QUOTE]Too much for me to answer just now, DD--I have to start a busy day. I want to answer you more on the anger question, but just don't have time today. Besides, I'm working through a major case of culture shock. My wife just told me that at breakfast I had the last of my grits--and you can't just buy grits at the local sushi store!! We have to order them special through the "Foreign Buyers Club."

I do want to address one interesting point you bring up here, though.

I read an article recently that said that people are much less polite in e-mail than they are in person. I think that is also true for Internet forums. Therefore I try to act on the Internet and in e-mails just as I would if I met the person in "real life."

Having said that, I had not yet gotten around to thinking about the concept of false teachers on the Internet and how to handle them. I'll throw another word into the mix: heretic. Maybe we can use this thread to discuss at what point an opponent on the BV/T forum becomes a heretic or, even worse, a false teacher. And how do we handle the Biblical injunctions to rebuke and/or separate from such a one? The KJV word "railer" also comes to mind. There are a lot of railers on the Internet, and we are not to associate with railers, according to the Bible.

I'll be working this through my head and heart. Any comments?

 

Discussing: What do you think about that? Well, I think...

Debate: Here is why I believe... Here is why I believe...

Argument: Is not!!! What are you so stupid that you can't read two words?!?

 

Gotta run to the church now, but a quick answer. I believe that biblically speaking, a false teacher is far worse than simply a mistaken doctrine--though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by false teaching. At any rate, a false teacher/prophet is a wolf who draws the sheep away and destroys them. Mistaken (false?) teaching can confuse the sheep, but they may still be all right spiritually. So in my book, it is a big jump from false teaching to a false teacher, not just a line to be crossed.

Catch you later.

 

This is the salient difference between a discussion and a fight.
</font>[/QUOTE]IMHO, this is also smacks of legalism and seems to be where most of the rancor arises. Discussions are shut down when one person says, "I'm right! You're wrong, and God will judge you for your wrongness!"

Presenting a case with solid evidence (or even nicely worded misunderstandings) allows discussion to move forward.

 

There is no place to put this:
---------------------------------------
1Jo 2:23 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father.

1Jo 2:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.

Italics are in the paper KJV1611 Edition for:
but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also

Italics are NOT in my paper KJV1769 Edition.
Italics are in my paper KJV1873 Edition. The 'but' at the
head of the phrase is in brackets.
---------------------------------------

What dynamic is going on here?

 

Very very true. Being angry for a selfish reason is already a sin. I would like for you to think about this: Is being angry over a wrong done (such as the one we are discussing), but for a selfish reason, any less wrong than ignoring a wrong when one should speak up? I think you would agree in the negative, that both are wrong. Its a balance: we must stand against Christians who profess binding beliefs yet refuse to allow them to be challenged and discussed because even though you and I may have the firmness of mind and will to ignore it, some Christians dont. Example: There are only 2 issues that ever caused major problems for kids in my youth group: KJVO and calvanism. Mine and your opinions on the matters aside, every problem came from people who held these beliefs stating categorically that everyone was bound to believe as they do, and if they didnt God would judge them. How does this sound to a 13 year old girl who's been saved for 3 weeks? They werent trying to teach her, they were trying to INDOCTRINATE her, overpower her. I see the same things from over the top fundamentalist preachers who think if you tell someone they are going to hell enough times, they will accept Christ. I feel its dishonest as a Christian to engage in such tactics, and I feel anyone convinced by such methods will never truely believe said idea at all unless more honest discussion or research is takes place. This makes me angry for them, because they feel guilted into a belief, but they dont really BELIEVE it. You can DO something or SAY something because of COERSION, but it is impossible to BELIEVE something by such means. The only product is confusion.

Thoughts?

</font>[/QUOTE]I'm going to answer this in a somewhat roundabout way. In the matter of anger, I live by principles (as I'm sure you agree that we all should in all things). So, I have certain principles that rule how I get angry. In other words, I believe we should only get angry on purpose, never by emotion. Purposeful anger is righteous anger, but I believe that emotional anger is of the flesh.

Now to deal somewhat more directly with your paragraph, one of my principles is never to get angry with those under my authority except under certain extreme circumstances (to save a life, for example). The basis for this principle is that authority carries it's own ability to control people without anger.

One illustration of this is from doing a ride-along with my cop friend in Texas. When he pulled over someone, he never, ever got angry. He didn't have to. His very presence meant that the entire weight of the city was behind his authority. One lady did buck him and he came very close to arresting her, but he did not get angry. (This is a guy that once got kicked out of college for punching a teacher!) He said later, "If she had just reached out and touched me I could have arrested her!"

Because of this principle of not getting angry at those under my authority, while we were raising our son, I never, ever disciplined him in anger. I never get angry at my wife, because I am to love her as Christ loved the church. (Think THAT one over for a few decades!) I never get angry at my church folk--they are my flock. (Well, I probably got angry a couple of times at that schizophrenic girl we had in our church in Yokohama!)

There are cases where it might be right for me to get angry at a flock member, but that would only be to protect another member of the flock. As to how I would apply that in a youth group to protect the kids from false doctrine, I would think I would have to limit myself to the pastor's authority on that. I don't know your situation, but it would depend on the amount of authority the pastor gives you, and what disciplinary measures you are allowed to use. It seems to me that if you are allowed enough power in your disciplinary measures, anger should never be necessary!

Now to bring this to the area of Internet debate, unless we are monitors, we have no authority on our debate opponents, right? The monitors shouldn't have to get angry--"One more post like that and you are out!"--problem should be solved! So again, I'm wondering what purpose anger could possibly have on an Internet forum?

(1) On the one hand, the Biblical way to control an opponent's anger is, "a soft answer turneth away wrath." I actually teach this as a technique in my self defense classes.

(2) On the other hand, anger on my part only increases the anger of my opponent. Prov. 17:14--"The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with."

Now, I'll deal even more directly with your paragraph. Not having been there in your situation with the 13-year-old girl, I can't speak directly to it, but I can certainly understand your anger. I'm just not sure it was useful. For the life of me, I can't figure out what anger is useful for in 99 cases out of 100!

 

I could post this in any number of active threads.

I picked up a book in the cheap book section @ B+N that is very interesting.

How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot (1963).
Most enlightening are the numerous quotes from original sources.

Jerome in a letter to Damasus, his sponsor, wrote:

Who would ever guess that 1600 years would go by and we still argue about it.

Rob

 

John and DD as I listen / read this discussion on anger it brought to mind a book I purchased after reading about it on this BB.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, what made me think of it while reading this thread DD said "When one puts forth a belief in such ways, using guilt and misleading evidence, such as many do in the bible translation discussion, I feel for every false statement made on this board, 10 more are made to real people in an attempt to convince them."

Mcdirector also stated, "IMHO, this is also smacks of legalism and seems to be where most of the rancor arises. Discussions are shut down when one person says, "I'm right! You're wrong, and God will judge you for your wrongness!"

Early in the book page 23, Johnson makes this statement, "Likewise those in spiritual positions of authority can violate our trust. It's possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, or disagrees, or or doesn't "behave" spiritually the way you want them to. When your words and actions tear down another, or attack or weaken a persons standing as a Christian-- to gratify you, your position or your beliefs while at the same time weakening or harming another-- that is spiritual abuse."

What is interesting to me is that I see myself in the same light I sometimes place others, denying their liberty that I might be right. Truly an interesting book.

BTW John I appreciate your usage of Prov. 17:14 I had never seen that used in the context of anger. Thank you

thjplgvp

 

Hello JofJ and others. JofJ you know how that I recently PM'd you to apologize for my anger during an exchange, so as a veteran of forum over-zeal let me speak.

In that case with JofJ, because I'm "speaking" to someone I've never met in person and do not really know, I became suspicious of JofJ's motives for trying to get me to post on another forum than the one I was on. His continued effort I took to be provocative on his part. After a while, I saw that was not the case and apologized.

So one of the problems here is that we are virtually strangers, especially for folks like me that haven't been here that long.

Also, I find that people are offended by my posts many times, when if I had said the same thing in person, would not have had that effect due to my body language, that I do not intend to be offensive, but that I do sometimes want to provoke a lively conversation.

And sometimes I provoke on purpose because I want to know that christians really believe what they say they believe, and if they're not sure about something, they should just say so. I like direct language and some people interpret that to be mean.

The bible version topic is a hot one, and will continue to be so. I was almost banned from a blog site because I revealed my AKJVO, byzantian preferred, alexadria-avoiding stand. I was shocked at the reaction - it was as if I grew horns! And I wasn't even debating the topic - I just mentioned as a BTW.

I'm very familiar with the work of Peter Ruckman and the strife he's sown amongst the brethren, so I know it cuts both ways - the rancor that is.

I love the interaction on this board and I look forward to more of it, but I hope it stays civil. Now I'll go back to my regularly scheduled debate on the theology forum.

 

I'll agree here. We all have our besetting sins, and anger doesn't seem to be mine. I've had a laid back personality ever since childhood, when I realized that getting angry at my brother only got me beat up!! That is, until I joined the wrestling team in 9th grade, but by then it was too late, I'd already been conditioned by my brother not to get angry! Thanks, Bro!

 

Lightfoot's book is very good. I had one on the shelf in the library and when I started reading here, I bought two more. He has a very nice overview.

Greatsite.com also has a nice overview of the history of the English speaking Bible. English Bible Timeline