Christians, preach the Gospel. Do not debate.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

Proverbs 18:2

"Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions."

Interesting quote, seems to say to me that both sides of the equation are fools. Religious folks are fools because they base their opinions off of what they are told by the church, and what they read in a book written by man. Isn't preaching just "airing your own opinion"? Non-religions folks are fools because they have no interest in understanding something that has zero factual base.

Perspective is a funny thing.

To the OP:

What i understand from your post is to say what you are told to say, but don't defend your platform if it is questioned? How is that in any way productive? That is going to leave you with only "preaching to the choir" so to speak. Anyone who isn't a christian is going to have a reason, maybe they are part of another religion, maybe they are atheist, or maybe they just don't care.

Just because debate for you was/is all about your ego, doesn't mean that's the case with everyone else. Some people use debate as a way to pull facts out of opinion.

reply to post by shaluach


I never enter formal debate for other reasons. But we are supposed to do apologetics for the faith.

What's wrong with a debate??? I'm agnostic so I have no beef here either way... There's always gonna be some a hole atheist or christian that's gonna jump in a thread and say your god is a fairy tale/ you are gonna burn... These guys are not worthy of debate, pick your fights (debates) wisely I say... There's nothing wrong with getting your brain to do a little thinking, just don't waste that energy on people who are not worthy of it....

All what christians and muslim have is "blind faith", while thumping logic. As long as they blindly believe in 2nd & 3rd hand opinions,None of them can prove any of it. All they have are a series of versus to twist and turn to benefit there own delusion.

reply to post by shaluach


I don't debate, if someone asks a question fine but im not going to berate and argue them into submission, they want to drag you down. No point giving in. I present my evidence and let people do their googling to find it.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by shaluach

 

I don't debate, if someone asks a question fine but im not going to berate and argue them into submission, they want to drag you down. No point giving in. I present my evidence and let people do their googling to find it.

You should try reading "Forged" by Bart D Ehrman.

reply to post by shaluach


Well said. But don't forget about the Bereans. In other words state your facts plainly and if the person is open to changing their mind then reasoning with them can be the fastest way to help them onto a new way of looking at things. But if they are not open ( and you can tell most of the time ) just state your point and then politely move along.

Originally posted by Joecroft


Giving an answer means to explain, to explain means to get into a debate/discussion, especially if someone disagrees with you

A discussion doesn't become a debate UNTIL someone disagrees with you or challenges your position. You and Skinny could discuss how ridiculous you think the Bible is all day long without debating it. So you're wrong.

And now that I’m on the subject, I’m starting to detect a hostile tone in your responses

Which is the whole point of the OP Debating you is pointless and will only lead to frustration, especially when you're too dense to acknowledge something as simple as the difference between a discussion and a debate.

Preach your faith (make statements based on what you deem is fact), but don't debate (aka, discuss why its fact).

Gotcha...so, why are you on ATS then, a forum designed for debate, discussion, and seeking truth/denying ignorance?

Oh..right..to stroke your own religious ego...and now with the backup that you don't have to...think about it..cause thinking is of course..anti-god or something.

I doubt ops was ever an atheist frankly...just a angry theist playing the atheist role to guise his disappointment in losing a deity, but without the principles behind it...probably quit religion to party, and now that the party days are over, decided to hedge bets. (my simplistic assumption based on what I see).

But ok...I guess if your not going to debate the finer points, then others should return the favor and simply ignore you? Perhaps counter your scripture with verses from lord of the ring...
"And Gandalf said, "You shall not pass!" and pass he did not."

Originally posted by Joecroft

Why didn’t you just answer my post, directly?

Because I had already answered that question when Sinny asked it which was well before you asked it. I just don't feel like repeating myself.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Do you want me to go look for it?

If you want to. That's up to you.

Originally posted by Joecroft
And is that a “no”, your not going to answer it, because you consider it a form of debate?

No, I do not consider it a form of debate. Now you are just putting words into my mouth. As I said, I already answered it.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Yeah I read it, but I disagree with your take, on debate vs discussion.

That's fine. My take may not be your take. To each their own.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Debate and discussion, are one and the same thing!

According to you. According to me, and the Scriptures, they are not.

Originally posted by Joecroft
And just to add, debating isn’t pointless…IMO

And IMO it is. To each their own.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Giving an answer means to explain, to explain means to get into a debate/discussion, especially if someone disagrees with you, but like I said in one of my other posts, this disagreeing doesn’t have to be hostile or negative one.

I never said disagreeing has to be hostile. But hostility is one of the factors that determines whether someone genuinely wants to discuss something or if they just want to debate it.

Originally posted by Joecroft
And now that I’m on the subject, I’m starting to detect a hostile tone in your responses

Well then you'd be 100% incorrect. No hostility on my end whatsoever. Sorry if you feel that way.

Originally posted by Joecroft
“No. I already answered that question in another post, a comment to Sinny.”

That's not hostile. That was a factual answer completely devoid of emotion one way or the other.

Originally posted by Joecroft
“Did you not read the OP?”

Not hostile. Simple question. You asked a question that was already answered in my initial post, so that made me question whether you bothered to read the whole OP.

Originally posted by Joecroft
“Oh and here's the verse in FULL CONTEXT”

The capitals wasn't hostility; it was stressing the words "full context." I should have used italics or bold letters instead.

Now can we get off of accusing me of hostility and get back to the topic?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by shaluach

 

So, let me get this straight. As a Christian, you are saying not to ever debate, just preach what you think is the truth. Even if someone has new information on your belief, you are still not supposed to discuss it, but just go on preaching. Is that right? This sounds like Blind Faith to me. Without intelligent debate, how do you know you are telling the truth?

This reminds me of what I had pounded into my head as a child. Never question, just believe. I didn't buy into that then, and will not buy into it now.

Wrong. That's not what I'm saying. As I said before, there is a difference between debate and discussion. No one is asking you to buy into anything. Do as you wish. Free will and all that jazz.

Despite what some of you are attempting to do, I'm not the bad guy, and most of what some folks are trying to attribute to me is 100% fictional.

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
To the OP:

What i understand from your post is to say what you are told to say, but don't defend your platform if it is questioned? How is that in any way productive?

No, that's not what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with intelligent, respectful discussion and answering someone's honest questions about what the Scriptures say. But we should not be drawn down into a pointless debate with someone who only seeks to undermine our faith.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Preach your faith (make statements based on what you deem is fact), but don't debate (aka, discuss why its fact).

No. There's a difference between debate and discussion

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Gotcha...so, why are you on ATS then, a forum designed for debate, discussion, and seeking truth/denying ignorance?

Because I like discussing things. I just won't debate them. If someone believes something that I don't or doesn't believe something that I do, then that's fine. To each their own. If they want to discuss our differences, I'm all for it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Oh..right..to stroke your own religious ego...and now with the backup that you don't have to...think about it..cause thinking is of course..anti-god or something.

Not at all. Believers are not anti-thinking. Some of the greatest thinkers were believers of one kind or another. But your condescending attitude is well-noted. So this will be my only response to you. A response full of condescension and insults and false assumptions is nothing other than someone's attempt to draw you into a debate.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I doubt ops was ever an atheist frankly...

Doubt away. I have no need to prove anything to you. Call me a liar. I'm not lying. If you had been friends with me on Facebook or in real life you'd know how "dedicated" of an atheist I was.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
just a angry theist playing the atheist role to guise his disappointment in losing a deity, but without the principles behind it...

Lacking belief in any gods requires principles? That's new to me.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
probably quit religion to party, and now that the party days are over, decided to hedge bets. (my simplistic assumption based on what I see).

Wow. Stereotype much? You are fully illustrating your ignorance. Sorry to burst your bubble but I have not drank in 15 years (and was an atheist up until 3 months ago). I have a full-time job and a family that I provide for. I do not drink, party, or go out to bars, etc. It's really sad that you had to stoop to this level and personally attack me with lies and false assumptions.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
But ok...I guess if your not going to debate the finer points, then others should return the favor and simply ignore you?

Based on your extremely negative, provocative, and confrontational post, I'd prefer it. Clearly there will be nothing of worthwhile substance from you.

Vain babblings

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

I always have to chuckle when Bible Thumpers have their so called "proof" of something from citations of their book. I suppose, since they can only read their one book, that they can't take into account the studies of really highly accredicted folks that do study religion, such as this one:

www.amazon.com...

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time and has appeared on Dateline NBC, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, the History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, N.C.

----------

It is often said, even by critical scholars who should know better, that “writing in the name of another” was widely accepted in antiquity. But New York Times bestselling author Bart D. Ehrman dares to call it what it was: literary forgery, a practice that was as scandalous then as it is today. In Forged, Ehrman’s fresh and original research takes readers back to the ancient world, where forgeries were used as weapons by unknown authors to fend off attacks to their faith and establish their church. So, if many of the books in the Bible were not in fact written by Jesus’s inner circle—but by writers living decades later, with differing agendas in rival communities—what does that do to the authority of Scripture?

Ehrman investigates ancient sources to:

Reveal which New Testament books were outright forgeries.

Explain how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how strongly it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.

Expose the deception in the history of the Christian religion.

Ehrman’s fascinating story of fraud and deceit is essential reading for anyone interested in the truth about the Bible and the dubious origins of Christianity’s sacred texts.

Now, I wonder which sources that the school of public opinion is going to follow more, the soap box preaching that papers grafitti citations of Bible Narratives, or the fella with huge credentials that has done much much more than read one book.

Soap box preaching can't deal with the serious study of religion because they only read one book. It causes an effect like the Opiate of the Masses that makes them think they have become somebody that now knows about "god." Lest we tell then, they know less about that than anyone. as they cite forged writings.

One has to laugh when they tell anyone we'll prove this or that, based on the limited. and often forged, knowledge of soap box preaching.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

While some were happy to acknowledge them others refer to them as 'pseudepigrapha' - meaning a falsely attributed work -, he wrote.

---------

'If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles,' Professor Ehrman writes.

---------

Professor Ehrman then goes on to write how the Bible is actually filled with the need for 'truth' but many of its writers were telling a lie.

'It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth,' he writes.

One does not have to debate, only to educate those that read only one book!!! Read the books of a real educator and find there are serious problems.

www.bartdehrman.com...

Then one won't be so apt to speak from ignorance.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Those that relish being dead of Christ keep quotations of gospel, for that they don't know Jesus' way in the slightest.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


And Jesus answered: “Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your cars, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in the sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of
the hands of men?”

edit on 24-6-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Christians dead of the way

Just a word of advice on determining what's "gospel" and what's not.

You need to look for contradictions within them, like this one:

For I tell you, it profits you not at all that you pore over dead scriptures if by your deeds you deny him who has given you the scriptures.

Your quote says that scripture is the work of the hands of men, but if you read further down in your link it suggests that God is the one who gave them those scriptures, so which is it?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ah! There you are. I U2Ued you today.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by shaluach

 

I don't debate, if someone asks a question fine but im not going to berate and argue them into submission, they want to drag you down. No point giving in. I present my evidence and let people do their googling to find it.

Hey, that MY method.

Don't debate?............burning books is just around the corner

And this from a 'former atheist'........whos reasons for becoming a christian are typically vague

OP how about breaking the mould and 'explaining' just one or two of the game-breaking events in your life that completely changed your worldview?

After all it may or may not help those who are undecided.............one way or another

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Joecroft
Why didn’t you just answer my post, directly?

Originally posted by Shaluach
Because I had already answered that question when Sinny asked it which was well before you asked it. I just don't feel like repeating myself.

No you didn’t!

I asked you to explain the difference between the, 2 in your own words.

Your previous post to Sinny, before I asked you the question, was the following…

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.

Which doesn’t answer my question, because you only really explained, how you see discussion. And all your other replies to Sinny, came after, I had already asked you the question. (Check the thread, from page 1 onwards if you don’t believe me)

So why would you answer my question in a off hand comment, to another poster, after I had already asked you the question, and then expect me to go look for it!, …seems a little bit arrogant to me…

And just to add; to reach an understanding, you sometimes have to debate the differences, it’s all part and parcel of discussion, on an everyday basis, in any subject, in any field!

Originally posted by Joecroft
Do you want me to go look for it?

Originally posted by Shaluach
If you want to. That's up to you.

Again completely arrogant, and a very negative attitude to have IMHO

Originally posted by Shaluach
No, I do not consider it a form of debate. Now you are just putting words into my mouth. As I said, I already answered it.

No you didn’t answer it directly before, you only answered it directly, in your last post. And now your accusing me of putting words in your mouth, when all I did, was ask for a straight up answer, but instead of answering it, directly, the firtst time around, you instead gave me the run around, to go look for it in other posts etc…

Originally posted by Shaluach

That's fine. My take may not be your take. To each their own.

Great, end of discussion lol

Or was it a debate…

I guess well never know…lol

Originally posted by Shaluach
Debate and discussion, are one and the same thing!

Originally posted by Shaluach
According to you. According to me, and the Scriptures, they are not.

But you haven’t shown where, in the scripture it states that. And yes, I already asked you in my previous post, the same question.

Originally posted by Shaluach
I never said disagreeing has to be hostile. But hostility is one of the factors that determines whether someone genuinely wants to discuss something or if they just want to debate it.

I never said you did. But your replies to me so far come across that way. And if you don’t think that’s the case, then take a loser look at your responses to me so far, including your last one.

Originally posted by Joecroft
And now that I’m on the subject, I’m starting to detect a hostile tone in your responses

Originally posted by Shaluach
Well then you'd be 100% incorrect. No hostility on my end whatsoever. Sorry if you feel that way.

Well maybe not hostile, but definitely a negative, and arrogant attitude, from where I’m standing.

Originally posted by Joecroft
“No. I already answered that question in another post, a comment to Sinny.”

Originally posted by Shaluach
That's not hostile. That was a factual answer completely devoid of emotion one way or the other.

But it shows a completely negative and arrogant attitude. And the question wasn’t answered in your previous reply to Sinny, as I have shown above. So you were essentially saying, “go look for it because I answered it already, in an off hand comment, to another poster, after the fact!!!


Continued….