Matthew Chapter 24

[BlindSeeker]

Shorter posts are always better. In addition, when making a longer post, it is best to state the hypothesis up front so people know what it is you are defending. Most people will simply ignore long posts, if they don't know where they are leading

I am not defending anything. I submitted my understanding on Matthew 24 for consideration and critique.

Not sure I understand the distinction here.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. I have spent most of my time with you defending how I post and not what I posted.

[Xan]

Debating on how someone should present material according to individual opinions is ridiculous. Can we please get back to the point of this thread and have an adult discussion concerning scripture?

[EricH]

Shorter posts are always better. In addition, when making a longer post, it is best to state the hypothesis up front so people know what it is you are defending. Most people will simply ignore long posts, if they don't know where they are leading

I am not defending anything. I submitted my understanding on Matthew 24 for consideration and critique.

Not sure I understand the distinction here.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. I have spent most of my time with you defending how I post and not what I posted.

Back to the question. I am not sure i understand the difference. Could you help me understand?

[EricH]

Debating on how someone should present material according to individual opinions is ridiculous. Can we please get back to the point of this thread and have an adult discussion concerning scripture?

The rules for a discussion are just as important as the discussion itself. It ensures that we all understand each other properly and that each side is heard as they intended. Last I checked, this was an adult way to approach discussions.

[BlindSeeker]

Debating on how someone should present material according to individual opinions is ridiculous. Can we please get back to the point of this thread and have an adult discussion concerning scripture?

The rules for a discussion are just as important as the discussion itself. It ensures that we all understand each other properly and that each side is heard as they intended. Last I checked, this was an adult way to approach discussions.

Ok EricH. I'll bite. Just where are the rules posted for this discussion . . . and who made the rules? Since you've obviously "checked" recently, please provide us with a link.

[Xan]

Debating on how someone should present material according to individual opinions is ridiculous. Can we please get back to the point of this thread and have an adult discussion concerning scripture?

The rules for a discussion are just as important as the discussion itself. It ensures that we all understand each other properly and that each side is heard as they intended. Last I checked, this was an adult way to approach discussions.

Ok EricH. I'll bite. Just where are the rules posted for this discussion . . . and who made the rules? Since you've obviously "checked" recently, please provide us with a link.

Actually, EricH posted a guideline for debate in Controversial Issues:

"I am reading a book by William Carr Peel called "Going Public with Your Faith" In it he has a great chapter on dealing with objections, and debate. As I was reading the chapter it occured to me that many of the principles could be tranferred to any debate situation. The goal of genuine debate should be the discovery of truth. If I believe something that is wrong, I should want to know it. Frequently we approach debate with a win at all costs attitude. Controversial topics are by their very nature, emotional. But we should be careful that our posting style does not unecessarily inflame the other person. Peel gives some excellent suggestions for taking the acid off of our debates:

Negative catch-phrases

Everyone knows that....

Thats just the way it is

There can be no question that...

Only a (liberal, conservative, idiot, heretic) would believe that ...

You don't know what you are talking about

That is ridiculous

How can you believe that

You can't be serious

If you believe that then you are ....

There is absolutely no way anyone could believe that

Give me a break

You are completely illogical

How can you say that

Positive ways to disagree

I hear what you are saying, but that raises a red flag for me

My perspective on this is different than yours

I may be missing something, but

I don't piece together the facts in the same way as you

That would make perfect sense to me if it were not for ....

I agree with you concerning ...., but I see an issue with ....

Are you saying ......

Have you considered this (scripture, evidence etc.)

Here is another perspective.

Here is how I see your logic unpacking "

He was right in everything he said, but it does not address post length. However, I do understand the difficulties with lengthy posts, which is why I took some time last night to start writing out a shorter synopsis. I don't know when I will finish it, but when I do, I will post it. Hopefully, that will jump start this important Biblical discussion, and we can stop going round and round on how long a post should be. Has everyone forgotten how long posts used to be on this site? Surely not. You're still here, and you and George have always been two of the lengthiest posters.

[traveller]

If I could inject something here?

I think that EricH is referring to debates, while Blindseeker has posted a discussion. Seldom has Blindseeker posted a "debate" per se. And correct me if I'm wrong, Blindseeker, but as in hte past, this thread is to read, consider, study, and then discuss - similar to a book club. Not an out and out debate becasue brother William is also seeking to enrich his knowledge in this, and not to defend a position one way or the other.

Also - it's getting very interesting.

[EricH]

If I could inject something here?

I think that EricH is referring to debates, while Blindseeker has posted a discussion. Seldom has Blindseeker posted a "debate" per se. And correct me if I'm wrong, Blindseeker, but as in hte past, this thread is to read, consider, study, and then discuss - similar to a book club. Not an out and out debate becasue brother William is also seeking to enrich his knowledge in this, and not to defend a position one way or the other.

Also - it's getting very interesting.

Exactly. But the problem arises in a discussion when people in the discussion take 2 opposing views. In a discussion when one provides evidence in support of the position they have articulated, and one counters that with other evidence, you have a debate. Even Blindseeker has posted criticizing the implications of a view opposite of the one articulated in the OP. That is debate

[BlindSeeker]

Even recently I read on WB how one member was waiting for the temple to be rebuilt since that is a scriptural fulfillment milestone to him. Yet, according to my understanding of Daniel 9:27, the temple was destroyed and God will not allow it to be rebuilt ever again, (not saying I'm right, that's just my understanding). What if Christians are establishing such false milestones? They are teaching people that they can be lazy in their faith and commitment to God until such and such happens. What we really see is God is not mock, he does deal with harshly sin. That is why there are five separate admonishments in Hebrews, best summarized by Hebrews 4 -

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

Attacking a theological position because of the possible abuses or consequences of that position is actually a logical fallacy. It is call the Appeal to Fear. It basically says that a position cannot be correct because of the negative consequences of that position being correct. This is a false way of arguing because the consequences of an idea have no bearing on whether the idea is true or not.

Many true things bring with them negative consequences and lead to abuses. But they are still true

Attacking? Arguing?

Where's the attack?

Where's the arguing?

You have yet to address the content of the OP . . .

[BlindSeeker]

If I could inject something here?

I think that EricH is referring to debates, while Blindseeker has posted a discussion. Seldom has Blindseeker posted a "debate" per se. And correct me if I'm wrong, Blindseeker, but as in hte past, this thread is to read, consider, study, and then discuss - similar to a book club. Not an out and out debate becasue brother William is also seeking to enrich his knowledge in this, and not to defend a position one way or the other.

Also - it's getting very interesting.

Exactly. But the problem arises in a discussion when people in the discussion take 2 opposing views. In a discussion when one provides evidence in support of the position they have articulated, and one counters that with other evidence, you have a debate. Even Blindseeker has posted criticizing the implications of a view opposite of the one articulated in the OP. That is debate

Your going to have to cut and paste the post to substantiate this claim.

As of yet nobody has post an opposing direct response to the contents of the OP. The main opposing responses have been to the methodology of the post and not the theology.