A "must read" about debate

[Christian]

Debate Is A Satanic Trap

When it comes to secular politics, I usually enjoy and place considerable weight on what I observe and hear during a debate.

One of the more positive features of a debate is the chance to see the candidates side by side and having them simultaneously be presented and respond to the issues.

We must be aware, however, that one of the more negative results of a debate is that the

[followerofjesus]

Rebuke is mandatory for all people to see the truth. The church is full of false religion & teachers because there is no one to rebuke or challenge it. Jesus rebuked people & taught them throughout the scripture wether they liked it or not. They wanted to lay their hands on him & called him a heretic. It is true to be likeminded in the truth this is where discernment serves purpose.

[apothanein kerdos]

What a load. For one, debate is inevitable. Anytime you share the Gospel you are inevitably debating against a person's worldview. They raise objections or questions and you supply a counter. Secondly, debate helps increase knowledge. You see altering viewpoints, what people believe, and subsequently research those viewpoints so that next time you are prepare to answer the objections/questions raised. Third, if you read the Book of Acts, the first council at Jerusalem was a debate.

Debate is a vital aspect of a believer's life, this article is simply trying to find a lazy way out of engaging the world in an intellectual manner. It also takes a Gnostic view of the world and sees this intellectual excercise as a "carnal" tool and not as a "spiritual" one. The article is flawed. It raises some good points about what debate can become, but overall, putting an outright ban on debate is absurd. This would nullify all discussion.

[branchesofHim]

Debate is a vital aspect of a believer's life, this article is simply trying to find a lazy way out of engaging the world in an intellectual manner. It also takes a Gnostic view of the world and sees this intellectual excercise as a "carnal" tool and not as a "spiritual" one. The article is flawed. It raises some good points about what debate can become, but overall, putting an outright ban on debate is absurd. This would nullify all discussion.

Controversy indeed ... because of the "truth". Inevitable.

Good word apothanein. Thank you.

Peace.

[followerofjesus]

I am likeminded w/ you on that kerdos

[seraphimbride]

I think the article is useful in prompting one to question the true intention of the debaters, when debating. There is often a sense that the ultimate goal of a debater is to be right, and to put down opinions that are not agreeable to a debater. I think this is often inspired by pride, and not pleasing to God. I also see debaters here who are full of humility in their words, and the way they are presented. I think if one chooses to debate, it should come from the intensions and conscience of humility and grace, and not righteousness. Debate is not inevitable, individually, but a choice to engage. The question is, "Is the debater coming from an attitude of love and general compassion for the one he is debating?" It does not have to cause division. just my opinion

[followerofjesus]

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Exodus 8:23

"I will put a division between My people and your people. Tomorrow this sign will occur.

Luke

But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death,

17and you will be hated by all because of My name.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think the article is useful in prompting one to question the true intention of the debaters, when debating. There is often a sense that the ultimate goal of a debater is to be right, and to put down opinions that are not agreeable to a debater. I think this is often inspired by pride, and not pleasing to God. I also see debaters here who are full of humility in their words, and the way they are presented. I think if one chooses to debate, it should come from the intensions and conscience of humility and grace, and not righteousness. Debate is not inevitable, individually, but a choice to engage. The question is, "Is the debater coming from an attitude of love and general compassion for the one he is debating?" It does not have to cause division. just my opinion

Again, good points but I'm not sure I can agree completely. In our post-modern age we're afraid to come at someone with the attitude of, "You're wrong and I'm right," but essentially, if we are going to lead someone to Christ, we have to bring that up. Living without Christ is wrong and the only right thing to do is to accept Him. Now this should not be done in arrogance or with the intention to "win" a debate, but I am not completely convinced that established right and wrong and drawing the line as to who is on which side is necessarily wrong.

[Marnie]

What a load.

Okay, should I worry? AK beat me to the punch. Is he getting smarter, or am I?

[apothanein kerdos]

Either way I answer that one, it looks arrogant. So I'll just back out...