Featured Debate without implicit insult?

It is neat that 12strings strummed a "chord" the was in "tune" with so many who have such divergent views.

His "pitch" to the BB is a reminder that when some would grandly "melismatic" and another "yodel" the "vocalization" should be done in a way the audience appreciates.

I personally have wondered if at times the BB has more "rhythmic" banging and crashing than "melodic" and "harmonic" "motifs."

One just has to understand and keep in mind that there are some posters who are tuning their jug by the amount of spit collected.

 

I tell everyone, "People, including myself, are idiots, just try not to be your average idiot".

Still trying to figure out if I am above of below.

 

12Strings,

Do you believe it is possible for you to understand my position but reject it? Do you believe it is possible for me to understand your position but reject it?

 

This may be what you are doing and it may be the poor attitude you bear when debating but it is not necessary. And what is the worst and most childish attack is to recharacterize someone's position in a way that demeans it like is done so often on this board and is usually the reason for so much contention.

 

Yes, I believe a person can understand and reject the truth, whether it is me, blinded by a prior belief in falsehood, or some other person.

For example I believe Christ died for all mankind, because, among other things, I do not believe God chose individuals for salvation before creation. Now if I did, then I could understand that others believe Christ died for all mankind, yet reject that premise based on what I believe the balance of scripture teaches. But I would be wrong.

 

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I would just suggest not using the word 'understand' in place of the word 'affirm.' I believe man can understand truth but choose not to affirm it or act in accordance with it. Instead he can trade that truth in for lies...or refuse to accept it (love it). The fact that he understands it makes him 'without excuse" according to Romans 1.

 

My point was not to denigrate any particular Calvinist, but rather to point out that Calvinists in general use ad hominem argument. If you read John Calvin's institutes, you will see when he uses such arguments, and if you read the arguments of historical Calvinists, you find the same assertion, if a person does not accept Calvinism, there is something wrong with him or her.

When such argument is employed, the result shifts the discussion off of Calvinism and on to the character and qualifications of the opponent. It deflects the discussion away from the false doctrines of Calvinism.

So your concerns are valid, but the driver is not a general immaturity equally divided on both sides of the A/C debate in my opinion. It is not driven by the qualifications and character of the Calvinists, but by the false doctrine that is being shielded by such tactics.

 

So Icon is not as "mean" as others so don't count what he says? And you have to use an insult to make your point that Icon's insult is weaker than others?


See this is the attitude that perpetuates the friction on this board.

 

I do not believe it has to be the implication. How one approaches debate decides that. If one is debating simply to prove others wrong then that will be the implication. And many but especially Calvies cannot debate without agenda. Maybe everyone who does this should find a better reason to debate. For this motivation is what causes the conflict. With this motivation there is not real interest in the view of others but only to beat someone down and be right.

The alternative is to take an interest in the debate response of those we choose to go back and forth with. This becomes difficult when a few comes along with unorthodox views or their post is not made with integrity. But there would be far less conflict if we didn't make posts like "I wouldn't want to be called a dispy either". Or (and I paraphrase) "If your do not preach election (as cavlies understand it) then you are not preaching the gospel". Or "(and I paraphrase) " if you do not believe in the calvies view of election you are not saved". Others are "you do not have the spiritual capacity to understand anything" or "you blasphemer".

These people are just plain straight out looking for a fight and to provoke others. These types of posts are the brunt of what cause so much unnecessary conflict on this board and why people are wanting to leave.

By the way I believe JohnofJapan is a very good example of everything I am saying we should do.

 

You have a point. Many Cals do seem to think we all believe the 'foresight faith' view and few SEEM to know of the corporate view of election. But once that is explained I don't believe they have to accept it in order to understand it.

 

Mandy..... I agree with 12 strings here! Herald does exhibit more grace and wisdom in His posts....and I enjoy his responses and am willing to receive correction biblically.
Some of my posts have gone into sinful excess....but not all of them. I tend to go at those on the attack of cals,and their doctrine when it opposes truth.
That is not my first choice...I would rather discuss things on a biblical level....but it seems that sometimes those in opposition want to become more personal in their attacks because they cannot answer to truth.
If I or any other cal posts truth......the further someone is from that truth...the more hostile is the return personal attack.
In posts where I have failed in my responses.....if you look ....it was in response to a personal attack trying to reduce what I posted biblically.
This is not always a wise thing to do.....as Herald,12 strings, Archangel,jbh28, and several others might be smoother in their response.
Jesus is the perfect example of what to do....but i often fall well short of this.I have noticed others fall short of this as well.

 

I don't know anything about Herald. We were not discussing him.

You bring up another point. Attacks made because we thing we can know the motivation of others. That may be what you would like to believe but you do not really know it unless they give it.

I don't know what that means.

 

I will demonstarate it shortly....you will know it when you see it:love2:

 

I think this is a very well thought out op. I agree in general. The nature of debate, when debating in good faith, results in a difference of opinion and phrases that could imply an insult. I do not view this catagory as mean, uncivil, or manipulative, but rather, a progression of an exchange of ideas. In this mindset, I do not think the implied insults are meant to harm the other poster. The vast majority of these threads are just good natured jabs back and forth..

Having said that, there is another catagory of thread that is not truly a debate thread. They are very easy to spot. They are mean, vicious, and demeaning in their very purpose for being created. They are started by trolls, flamers, and those who enjoy irritating people for the joy of watching them get angry. There has been a whole series of these as of late.

These are two distinct catagories, and have nothing in common.

 

Notice 12 Strings, we are now discussing people and not principles.