1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Wins a Debate?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by John of Japan, Nov 25, 2010.

?

Does abrasiveness help in a debate?

  1. Yes, abrasiveness helps win a debate.

    2 vote(s)
    6.5%

  2. Abrasiveness neither helps nor harms your cause.

    3 vote(s)
    9.7%

  3. No, abrasiveness harms your position in a debate.

    19 vote(s)
    61.3%

  4. I don't know.

    1 vote(s)
    3.2%

  5. Other

    6 vote(s)
    19.4%
Top Posters
Page 4 of 6
  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #61 Luke2427, Nov 28, 2010
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rude people are certainly annoying and cause ill will anyway! :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #62 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree completely.


    Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He was telling them their factual situation, and discerning their hearts as their Judge, not making silly insults. At any rate, that passage was certainly not describing a debate!

    The thing is, in English semantics the word "abrasive" has a completely negative connotation. (You can take my word for it--I was an English minor and have worked professionally as a proof reader, book editor and English teacher and consultant.:type:) No one wants to be called abrasive, as the poll on this thread proves (well, except you apparently:smilewinkgrin:). Your original mistake was clinging to the word "abrasive" when you should have gone with your instincts (I assume) and gone with some other word.
     
    #63 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2010
  4. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #64 Luke2427, Nov 28, 2010
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Um, you did vote for abrasive on the poll....:saint:
    Wrong. I said that Jesus did not debate, and I said that neither one was abrasive.

    How many times do I have to say yes? (Make that "if," though.) For the third time, yes--with a third party judge, just like in a competetive debate! So, who's your third party judge?
     
    #65 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
  6. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #66 Luke2427, Nov 28, 2010
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #67 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
  8. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #68 Luke2427, Nov 28, 2010
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #69 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
  10. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #70 Luke2427, Nov 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2010
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agreed.
    Agreed.

    And the method of interpretation is to be the grammatical-historical method. Agreed?
    Please clarify. We need a clear definition from a dictionary, as you gave for "debate." I'm unclear here as to what your definition is. Are you suggesting your understanding of the common use of the word, or the partial definition from Websters? Or something else?
    Etymology is unacceptable in any discussion of semantics. (See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 26-32, or David Alan Black in Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, pp. 121-123.) The sole exception for the sake of our discussion would be a hapax legomena.
    I reserve the right to discuss the meaning of words based on the norms of the society in question as per skopos theory.
    I accept this as the proposition, as far as this.
    But here you've apparently invented your own definition. Please give a dictionary definition we both can agree on.
    As long as you agree that we're using grammatical-historical interpretation. In addition, it's up to the judge to decide if my semantics is "uncommon" or in my "own pet ways," as you quaintly put it--not you.
     
    #71 John of Japan, Nov 28, 2010
  12. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #72 Luke2427, Nov 29, 2010
  13. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    We are not talking about New Testament words yet. We are talking about two english words: debate and abrasive. It is your contention that Jesus never debated and that neither he nor Paul were ever abrasive.

    So we need to know what those two words mean before we embark on a debate.

    When you said that Jesus never "debated" and that he nor Paul were ever "abrasive" you were not speaking New Testament Greek. It was English. So we want to know, at this point what the English terms debate and abrasive mean.

    Once that is settled we can go to the New Testament and see if Jesus and Paul ever conducted themselves in a manner that meets the English definition of the English word- abrasive. And we can see if Jesus ever embarked on anything that meets the English definition of the English word- debate.

    Now in the process we will be using the historical-grammatical method to uncover exegetically and contextually, of course, what exactly passages we look at prove along these lines.

    But for now we just want to come together on what "debate" and "abrasive" means.
     
    #73 Luke2427, Nov 29, 2010
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #74 John of Japan, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2010
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Done and done.
    It doesn't matter, English or Greek. Semanticists are universally agreed that meaning in a language (any language including English) is discerned by contemporary usage. In determining meaning, etymology is of limited usage and dictionaries will only get you so far. Uncle Miya and I laugh at the dictionaries on Fridays in our translation sessions.
    Fine. Go for it. And I will use the techniques and tools of a modern semanticist to prove you wrong.
    Have at it.
     
    #75 John of Japan, Nov 29, 2010
  16. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #76 Luke2427, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2010
  17. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When It Comes to Members of the BB . . .

    This is an interesting question, John. I believe that being non-abrasive is important. I can't tell you how many time's members of this forum have pushed me to the point of anger with their "ABRASIVE" replies.

    I came to a Christian forum to find loving support, and loving disagreement. Not name calling, and insults. Character Assassination takes place a lot of times, when love needs to be applied in disagreement with another member.

    There are many posts that I could address in a negative way, but I choose to ignore the post, and leave it lay where I found it.

    If more members would practice this by the name of Jesus, and not defend their abrasive attacks as the standards of debate, there be more people on the board.

    This is just my opinion, and the truth is, I expect some criticism for my opinion, but I can only hope the criticism is in the form of love, and be non-abrasive.

    It's okay to disagree. . . It's not okay to tear the other person apart in front of our cyber neighbors! If you come across something that looks like it is easy to tear apart and rip up, if you can't do it without attacking the other person, then leave the 'dead dog in the road' and drive on by.


    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
    #77 righteousdude2, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2010
  18. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17

    Amen and well said Righteousdude.

    No one is going to win this debate.

    They've argued back and forth. Neither is going to covince the other.

    It's quite ugly.

    :jesus:
     
    #78 preacher4truth, Nov 29, 2010
  19. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    This is proof, John, that those who are siding with you are opposing jerks who employ ad hominem. They are not opposing bluntness and frankness.

    They are not opposing the idea I put to you that prompted you to start this thread that debate is about testing the metal of our ideas.

    They are not opposing the idea that debate means you throw your ideas to the lions and if those ideas do not render the lions toothless- if the lions are able to consume those ideas- then the lions have done you a great favor. Now you can go and get better ideas- stronger ones.

    Debate is not fellowship. Debate can and should be friendly and should be conducted in a Christian manner with the goal of uncovering truth at the center.

    Fellowship is meant for encouragement and strengthening one another. Debate is meant to test ideas.

    Both are wonderful if they are allowed to accomplish what they are SUPPOSED to accomplish.
     
    #79 Luke2427, Nov 29, 2010
  20. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    You must not be reading these posts very well. John and I love each other and we have both noted that this is very enjoyable.

    Men can oppose one another without it being "ugly".
     
    #80 Luke2427, Nov 29, 2010
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 6
Loading...