You're dead right. It was a really interesting topic and similar to astronomy, people know a lot of the intro level stuff. DNA and cellular biology is kind of in the same boat. I was hoping for a discovery documentary level discussion (and now know to better attempt to estimate my depth of knowledge to ensure fair expectation setting).
Then here, I bump into someone with both a deeper base of knowledge and far more rigorous debate style over discussion style. I literally feel bad if he feels his time was wasted.
All that said, wow I sincerely appreciate those call outs! I have so much to learn and those like my opponent who have been patient and kind have accelerated working through that learning curve dramatically.
Sorry for the lack of fireworks on what could have been a really fun one. Haha give me a year or so and I might be ready to re-tackle.
Unless we're talking physics/astronomy. Then I'm game all day!
Thanks again, that was kind of you to go out of your way to share!
And again one further nod to Jrob. You're a beast (good kind haha)
I understand that position. Perhaps worth starting another debate with better terms for the type of discussion you're looking for? No pressure either way, feel free to engage in this debate if you wish. Perhaps we could just focus on a few things and let another debate continue the discussion if necessary?
This verse is in the same context as Galatians 5, which goes much more in depth. An increase in good fruits of the spirits lead to good works because it's now what you want to do, where before you didn't. If you don't have good fruit, you're not a follower of Christ (faith) and therefore faith without works can be thought of as dead. James goes on after that first verse to elaborate on his meaning. For a much more logically based argument, and longer, Romans goes VERY into this idea. Especially around chapters 5, 6, 7.
When the people around you understand the context and you have limited space with which to write, you don't always add the level of context next to every single similar claim as we would today. You have to look at the larger narrative of that section as well as the New Testament story to see if the conclusions follow.
Sorry. That's why I tried to be specific. Its a good distinction but I was more looking for the like God hates gay people person. Like God loves everyone, but this group is special and hated.
Your argument is more he loves and hates each person. Different argument than the one set forth. But a super interesting one.
Agreed. I'm new here. Still confined to my phone for now and have a lot to learn.
The patience of those like my opponent has allowed for me to already learn quite a bit about style and format and flow, but continues to allow these discussions to iterate these things against my ideas.
I'm throughly enjoying these discussions. Taking follow up points. Becoming a better communicator. Generally, just learning.
Again props to my opponent and others who do the same. It's so very appreciated!
My experience is showing. Let me rephrase just so I'm not trying to sound debatey and say something else. Lol
The PM sounds great, I didn't want to impose. I think that makes a ton of sense given the first debate hahaha. No offense taken. If you're willing to be patient with me and help me learn, I'd be foolish not to put my ego aside and admit I have much to learn. I try not to be foolish.
I'll send you that and please feel free to restate, but I'll try to get it to a PRO: Truth claim, CON: Conflicting Truth Claim to PRO.
Something to reference back to (and for me in a big way) to keep on topic. I look forward to it. And then once we agree I'll create the debate and take the PRO side.
I think i have a more targeted argument to offer up on this same topic. If you're interested in trying again some time, just let me know. Either tag me in a new one or I can do the same. If not, no worries. I enjoyed our conversation and after a few debates have thought through my arguments with more rigor and flow.
As to not set something up for no reason. I realize id have to specify intelligent designer. I think that designer to God is a whole different debate. I'd be very interested though if you wanted to engage in that debate. My personal view is that it's a too complicated deductive argument to go from evidence the universe was created to Jesus is God. This is admittedly my stance and view. My thought for what it's worth. No need to discuss "which designer if any of the religions are right " if we fundamentally disagree that the evidence suggests designer or not. I hope you see my point. I'm not trying to force a view or force you into a conversation you don't want to have.
Either way this was awesome, thank you! And again your patience with my newness here is super appreciated. You're under no obligation and you still hung in there. Ive learned because of it and can now do better. That's awesome.
I just finished your review of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time so much! Thoughtful and unbiased outside perspective it seemed to me. And you provided me some really fantastic advice. Once I'm able to move my setup and get on the computer, I can do some of this in earnest. The advice at the end of laying it out first in that way, im going to start now, but can easily do in a real way once I switch to my PC. That was fantastic advice. I really do appreciate it. I'm brand new to this and would be foolish not to take the advice of the more experienced when they take time out, that they didn't have to, to provide it. If you ever have advice you'd like to share I only see it as beneficial and please don't hesitate to provide it. Ive got a lot to learn and appreciate the help. Thanks again!
Given i don't know your particular position of what evidence you'd have to support this, may I either inquire where your position? Could either be handled in comments to set the stage or as my first round to keep it in the debate. Your call. But I don't really see where this is in the Bible so would simply be forced to otherwise start by setting a few general examples of a counter point, which may miss your position all together.
I'm just hoping to know where you stand rather than assume.
The Democrats and Republicans i can actually work with. It's actually one i really wanted to use but was afraid of the potential rabbit trails if misunderstood. So what I'm trying to say, using your example, would be if we agreed that "loving the policies" which were discussed defines what is a republican or democrat (not an argument for the policies or real world definition). Another way to say it might be. If one hates/disagrees with those policies would then definitionally exclude them from being called which ever party's policies was being outlined. This is not the Scotsman fallacy. I would say using these analogy terms that the Scotsman fallacy arrives in saying in addition to the agreed upon terms which define you as one or the other, I hold to these opinion based ones that are not in agreement between the parties. And since they dont agree with mine, they're not actually that party. It's different.
Totally up to you! I made some points in my most recent round. I'm all for continuing to talk them out. This has been interesting and engaging so far!
I only meant to be explicit and to hopefully properly set some conditions to ensure fairness. Im not out here looking for wins. I truly want to talk these things through. If I happen to make a compelling enough case based off an usual premise, im happy to take the win. If not, I only feel it fair to concede. Or at least inform any voters that they should most likely vote for you unless you're basically like, yeah I get it, good argument. I agree with you now. Otherwise the premise is too potentially leading. I just have found that by doing it this way, I can better target the discussion.
Again up to you but im all for continuing. Thank you!
So the main point is when people say things in these discussions like look at what has resulted from religion and names all kinds of terrible acts and deeds done through history, or bring up the legalistic image based stereotypical "religious" person, that these ideas and things are in direct contrast to Christianity. And if that what's being used then Christianity most certainly is not. Thay said, you all have a point. Perhaps a more fair title would be Christianity is not a religion, per the colloquial definiton of religion? I just don't think it's fair to equate Christianity with things that Jesus literally rallied against.
For example. In more than one debate I've seen the quote from Richard Dawkins brought up, in the context of applying to Christianity, where he says that forcing a religion on your child is akin to child abuse.
The problem. You can't force someone to love someone. A Christian is called to love God and love neighbor. You can't force someone to believe something. A Christian is called to believe in the diety of Christ and their being a sinner. I can go on. What's more, that quote is usually used in conjuction with my reference to the colloquial definition above. I think this is unfair and wish we could all at least be on the same page about what is and isn't Christianity and the way of life preached by Christ. Not that I claim to have every answer. Far from it. But the Bible is clear on the core tenants of Christianity. No interpretation required. I legitimately want to have these conversations, but there's no sense if we're not able to start from the same understanding. Then, they often simply turn out to be very unfruitful. And what a shame given the gift we have to be able to converse in this fashion.
As I tried to explain. I'm trying something a little different. There isn't an option for this so I'm just trying to be clear in the description. I'm not at all forcing anyone. I've gotten really good engagement from multiple people and they've understood why I did it this way after we got going.
If you're very strict on the debate style then please, just hang out and watch if interested in the topic. I also should say that if we fail to come to a good understanding of terms or to pull a truly concise conflict statement out, I take the full burden due to this set up and will concede the debate. If you're someone who thinks this is a cheap win for you then just hang out and watch if interested. The only way I feel I deserve to have a vote for my position is if, at the end, the opposing side feels they understand this weird set up, we indeed pull a point out that my title refers to, I've shown that to be in error, and (importantly) basically says yeah I get it, I concede. Otherwise by all means please take the win. The burden falls to me and my setup.
Since I am getting engagement, and very good conversations too I might add, I don't really want to abandon this. Just refine my description for clarity.
This was at the very top of the round i posted. I couldn't think where else to trim but needed the character count room to post.
Figured I could just drop it here since it doesn't relate to the direct subject matter anyway:
Your method of approach and format are helpful, easy to follow, and well written. Thank you. It's a pleasure to engage with you. Furthermore a call out to your patience and kindness of the lack of this level of format and flow from me. Thank you.
If we are able to come to agreement (please feel free to contest any part of the addition you'll see below to Christianity i offered) then i have lost according to my premise. If we are not able to come to a consensus on definiton where you'll agree to disagree essentially, it will be impossible to satisfy the premise of the debate. Given the unique setup, this burden falls to me and I shall offer my concession for this debate. I never wanted to be unfair. Just start the conversation differently. I hope this is understood.
Yeah. I need to do a better job in the description but i see it this way.
If, as has happened in a few of these, we quickly engage on a specific topic, id suppose the voting would go in favor of who best debated from that point on.
It's a little different starting with a vague premise then using the first round or two to set terms.
If someone is very in the model of the truest sense of debate in terms of argument flow and final weighing of points discussed, then probably not the debate to take.
For those that tend to end up more so having a discussion which often times ends up more vague at the end anyway. As a ton that I ive engaged in do. Then my hope is this weird start can actually help focus the further rounds.
Otherwise I've noticed we try to cover half of Christian theology, very deeply, all at the same time and only in a few rounds. Not really that do-able if the topic has any depth. Most do.
I'll work to refine my description. I've offended and set off more than one person without intention. But I don't want to stop this avenue of discussion all together as I've gotten into some really, really solid focused discussions this way.
I'm glad you feel that way. I can't speak for anyone. But it's incredibly frustrating when I see people who proport to be Christians and are just ignorantly popping off at others. Hey, if it helps this audience, I'll give you something to potentially redirect and refocus someone.
(Rather than saying look you're wrong, be it a correct statement) What i literally ask brothers and sisters i see doing this to others is how, in your approach, are you fulfilling Christ's command in 1 Peter?
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 ESV
I'll route for him. Such a pleasurable and engaging conversation. I feel i better understand where he's coming from and have personal follow-ups to investigate. Sounds like a successful exchanging of views and ideas.
I don't see an option which allows me to vote. It just says voting period where publish argument usually was. What am I missing? Sorry. One of the first debates I've done on here and also enter the voting period. I'm not trying to be difficult (just happen to be hahaha)
That was a great discussion. Thanks again for bearing with me.
The library was a great suggestion. I have a laptop. But it's hooked up with my work stuff and with 2 kids and some free time after they're in bed for my wife and I to hang. I just don't have the time to hop on. I'd have time for maybe one debate argument a day, if that, if I waited for good PC time.
Given this and other points raised, ill take the burden to better define terms and target discussions on debates in the future. I can handle a single discussion, but some of these turn into simultaneous discussions of many, major and different aspects of Christian theology.
Please feel free to tag me in any debates you are willing to put up with me on haha. I will be working to refine my style and presentation but that takes time. For now I'd simply expect a slowly evolving version of the style presented. Just trying to be honest and fair with time time I have to work. My kids won't be this young and time dependent forever.
Also, if you see anything that interests you from me, jump in! I've been opting for longer round settings to allow for a round or two of level setting, definition agreement, focusing of specific topic, etc.
The addition of likely is one solely motivated to call out the people with who's definiton I would be in complete agreement. I mean, it's not that special. It's shared by those I regularly talk to at my church. By those running my church. By my Bible study members and ever single speaker, teacher, and scholar I follow.
The rest of the motivation is laid out in the description.
Stellar conversation so far. I'm really enjoying it. You've got me thinking deeply and critically. You're presenting your views very rationally and while passionately, not hatefully or with ego. Thank you!
I offer this debate as a digression from our first debate. And it's a discussion I really enjoy.
Terms:
Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Agreed.
Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable
Agreed.
Universe - Spacetime and their contents
Agreed.
- Please no solipsism.
Just looked that up. I'm good with that but hold to the idea some very big, large scale Universe questions are unprovable. I hope there's a distinction there. I think we know light exists and is packaged in photons for example. I think H20 to be 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom even if the inner building blocks are still being sorted out. Etc.
- These terms are not to be redefined at any point in the Debate.
Agreed!
- BoP is on Pro to provide facts that support the resolve.
May i propose we take one thing at a time. I'm happy to continue on via another debate if necessary. But I dont think this will be productive if I drop 5, 10 facts etc and we try to handle all
- Let's be respectful and have fun.
Please. My faith calls for me to share the reason for the hope I have in a way that is gentle and respectful. I seek to do that in all interactions. Not the judgmental and haughty interactions I see "Christians" offer up or more likely force down people's throats. It drives me nuts.
Final thought. I more so think the areas I can voice are a counter conclusion to that of secular science based upon the same evidence presented on the current theory.
ah read that as like you were ready with a one off. I understand where you're beefs are coming from in that section. I'm not out here to defend Turek haha.
If any of my arguments drift towards his, ill find out which are relevant to me haha
hey, I realized i kind of ignored your question trying to explain.
To specifically answer, Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?
Up to you. I think i laid better, more specific groundwork of my stance in the opening. (Thanking you for your patience) feel free to bite on which ever part of both (or both) that works for you.
that's kind of the whole premise for wanting to start this. I think the "ultra-right wing conservatives" are wrong. Furthermore, I think they are portraying what's found in the Bible incorrectly and that it's causing major issues. I feel so many of the discussions I see are about a version of Christianity that is not one found in the Bible.
I very much appreciate the offer on coaching. I'll be in touch if I get some more free time for this. I'm coming to the end of a work vacation and am about to get much busier.
Let's cancel. I'll be around. I'll be learning. When I can better round of terms and drive to a more solid debatable foundation, ill be back.
Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. This is in contrast to the commonly held assumption i run into that Christian faith is blind belief without evidence.
It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.
There are MANY who berate and judge and chastise for having doubts. This is not biblical.
It's this kind of two fold point I was looking to debate. I figured a legalistic Christian who's more worried about checking the boxes of religion than following Jesus. And it's a view which I think falsely portrays Christianity and pushes people from Jesus.
I wanted to engage on this topic. If im wrong, I'd like to know.
That is awesome feedback thank you! I totally agree too. Thanks for taking the time! You didn't have to.
You're dead right. It was a really interesting topic and similar to astronomy, people know a lot of the intro level stuff. DNA and cellular biology is kind of in the same boat. I was hoping for a discovery documentary level discussion (and now know to better attempt to estimate my depth of knowledge to ensure fair expectation setting).
Then here, I bump into someone with both a deeper base of knowledge and far more rigorous debate style over discussion style. I literally feel bad if he feels his time was wasted.
All that said, wow I sincerely appreciate those call outs! I have so much to learn and those like my opponent who have been patient and kind have accelerated working through that learning curve dramatically.
Sorry for the lack of fireworks on what could have been a really fun one. Haha give me a year or so and I might be ready to re-tackle.
Unless we're talking physics/astronomy. Then I'm game all day!
Thanks again, that was kind of you to go out of your way to share!
And again one further nod to Jrob. You're a beast (good kind haha)
You're fine. That comment just makes me feel twice as bad about the second response I did.
So hey. We're both learning and growing right. And open to a conversation. A win i think.
I understand that position. Perhaps worth starting another debate with better terms for the type of discussion you're looking for? No pressure either way, feel free to engage in this debate if you wish. Perhaps we could just focus on a few things and let another debate continue the discussion if necessary?
This verse is in the same context as Galatians 5, which goes much more in depth. An increase in good fruits of the spirits lead to good works because it's now what you want to do, where before you didn't. If you don't have good fruit, you're not a follower of Christ (faith) and therefore faith without works can be thought of as dead. James goes on after that first verse to elaborate on his meaning. For a much more logically based argument, and longer, Romans goes VERY into this idea. Especially around chapters 5, 6, 7.
When the people around you understand the context and you have limited space with which to write, you don't always add the level of context next to every single similar claim as we would today. You have to look at the larger narrative of that section as well as the New Testament story to see if the conclusions follow.
Agreed. Christianity sure doesn't.
Yes and thank you. Also, the vote review was helpful, I appreciate it!
How would you define "proved" for something like the existence of a being who created and exists outside of our Universe?
Sorry. That's why I tried to be specific. Its a good distinction but I was more looking for the like God hates gay people person. Like God loves everyone, but this group is special and hated.
Your argument is more he loves and hates each person. Different argument than the one set forth. But a super interesting one.
Agreed. I'm new here. Still confined to my phone for now and have a lot to learn.
The patience of those like my opponent has allowed for me to already learn quite a bit about style and format and flow, but continues to allow these discussions to iterate these things against my ideas.
I'm throughly enjoying these discussions. Taking follow up points. Becoming a better communicator. Generally, just learning.
Again props to my opponent and others who do the same. It's so very appreciated!
My experience is showing. Let me rephrase just so I'm not trying to sound debatey and say something else. Lol
The PM sounds great, I didn't want to impose. I think that makes a ton of sense given the first debate hahaha. No offense taken. If you're willing to be patient with me and help me learn, I'd be foolish not to put my ego aside and admit I have much to learn. I try not to be foolish.
I'll send you that and please feel free to restate, but I'll try to get it to a PRO: Truth claim, CON: Conflicting Truth Claim to PRO.
Something to reference back to (and for me in a big way) to keep on topic. I look forward to it. And then once we agree I'll create the debate and take the PRO side.
Thanks again.
I think i have a more targeted argument to offer up on this same topic. If you're interested in trying again some time, just let me know. Either tag me in a new one or I can do the same. If not, no worries. I enjoyed our conversation and after a few debates have thought through my arguments with more rigor and flow.
As to not set something up for no reason. I realize id have to specify intelligent designer. I think that designer to God is a whole different debate. I'd be very interested though if you wanted to engage in that debate. My personal view is that it's a too complicated deductive argument to go from evidence the universe was created to Jesus is God. This is admittedly my stance and view. My thought for what it's worth. No need to discuss "which designer if any of the religions are right " if we fundamentally disagree that the evidence suggests designer or not. I hope you see my point. I'm not trying to force a view or force you into a conversation you don't want to have.
Either way this was awesome, thank you! And again your patience with my newness here is super appreciated. You're under no obligation and you still hung in there. Ive learned because of it and can now do better. That's awesome.
I just finished your review of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time so much! Thoughtful and unbiased outside perspective it seemed to me. And you provided me some really fantastic advice. Once I'm able to move my setup and get on the computer, I can do some of this in earnest. The advice at the end of laying it out first in that way, im going to start now, but can easily do in a real way once I switch to my PC. That was fantastic advice. I really do appreciate it. I'm brand new to this and would be foolish not to take the advice of the more experienced when they take time out, that they didn't have to, to provide it. If you ever have advice you'd like to share I only see it as beneficial and please don't hesitate to provide it. Ive got a lot to learn and appreciate the help. Thanks again!
Given i don't know your particular position of what evidence you'd have to support this, may I either inquire where your position? Could either be handled in comments to set the stage or as my first round to keep it in the debate. Your call. But I don't really see where this is in the Bible so would simply be forced to otherwise start by setting a few general examples of a counter point, which may miss your position all together.
I'm just hoping to know where you stand rather than assume.
Stranger Things a fair pro? Hahaha
Thank you again. I learned a lot and your patience and willingness to meet me where im at are so appreciated.
I enjoyed our conversation very much!
The Democrats and Republicans i can actually work with. It's actually one i really wanted to use but was afraid of the potential rabbit trails if misunderstood. So what I'm trying to say, using your example, would be if we agreed that "loving the policies" which were discussed defines what is a republican or democrat (not an argument for the policies or real world definition). Another way to say it might be. If one hates/disagrees with those policies would then definitionally exclude them from being called which ever party's policies was being outlined. This is not the Scotsman fallacy. I would say using these analogy terms that the Scotsman fallacy arrives in saying in addition to the agreed upon terms which define you as one or the other, I hold to these opinion based ones that are not in agreement between the parties. And since they dont agree with mine, they're not actually that party. It's different.
Totally up to you! I made some points in my most recent round. I'm all for continuing to talk them out. This has been interesting and engaging so far!
I only meant to be explicit and to hopefully properly set some conditions to ensure fairness. Im not out here looking for wins. I truly want to talk these things through. If I happen to make a compelling enough case based off an usual premise, im happy to take the win. If not, I only feel it fair to concede. Or at least inform any voters that they should most likely vote for you unless you're basically like, yeah I get it, good argument. I agree with you now. Otherwise the premise is too potentially leading. I just have found that by doing it this way, I can better target the discussion.
Again up to you but im all for continuing. Thank you!
So the main point is when people say things in these discussions like look at what has resulted from religion and names all kinds of terrible acts and deeds done through history, or bring up the legalistic image based stereotypical "religious" person, that these ideas and things are in direct contrast to Christianity. And if that what's being used then Christianity most certainly is not. Thay said, you all have a point. Perhaps a more fair title would be Christianity is not a religion, per the colloquial definiton of religion? I just don't think it's fair to equate Christianity with things that Jesus literally rallied against.
For example. In more than one debate I've seen the quote from Richard Dawkins brought up, in the context of applying to Christianity, where he says that forcing a religion on your child is akin to child abuse.
The problem. You can't force someone to love someone. A Christian is called to love God and love neighbor. You can't force someone to believe something. A Christian is called to believe in the diety of Christ and their being a sinner. I can go on. What's more, that quote is usually used in conjuction with my reference to the colloquial definition above. I think this is unfair and wish we could all at least be on the same page about what is and isn't Christianity and the way of life preached by Christ. Not that I claim to have every answer. Far from it. But the Bible is clear on the core tenants of Christianity. No interpretation required. I legitimately want to have these conversations, but there's no sense if we're not able to start from the same understanding. Then, they often simply turn out to be very unfruitful. And what a shame given the gift we have to be able to converse in this fashion.
As I tried to explain. I'm trying something a little different. There isn't an option for this so I'm just trying to be clear in the description. I'm not at all forcing anyone. I've gotten really good engagement from multiple people and they've understood why I did it this way after we got going.
If you're very strict on the debate style then please, just hang out and watch if interested in the topic. I also should say that if we fail to come to a good understanding of terms or to pull a truly concise conflict statement out, I take the full burden due to this set up and will concede the debate. If you're someone who thinks this is a cheap win for you then just hang out and watch if interested. The only way I feel I deserve to have a vote for my position is if, at the end, the opposing side feels they understand this weird set up, we indeed pull a point out that my title refers to, I've shown that to be in error, and (importantly) basically says yeah I get it, I concede. Otherwise by all means please take the win. The burden falls to me and my setup.
Since I am getting engagement, and very good conversations too I might add, I don't really want to abandon this. Just refine my description for clarity.
This was at the very top of the round i posted. I couldn't think where else to trim but needed the character count room to post.
Figured I could just drop it here since it doesn't relate to the direct subject matter anyway:
Your method of approach and format are helpful, easy to follow, and well written. Thank you. It's a pleasure to engage with you. Furthermore a call out to your patience and kindness of the lack of this level of format and flow from me. Thank you.
If we are able to come to agreement (please feel free to contest any part of the addition you'll see below to Christianity i offered) then i have lost according to my premise. If we are not able to come to a consensus on definiton where you'll agree to disagree essentially, it will be impossible to satisfy the premise of the debate. Given the unique setup, this burden falls to me and I shall offer my concession for this debate. I never wanted to be unfair. Just start the conversation differently. I hope this is understood.
Yeah. I need to do a better job in the description but i see it this way.
If, as has happened in a few of these, we quickly engage on a specific topic, id suppose the voting would go in favor of who best debated from that point on.
It's a little different starting with a vague premise then using the first round or two to set terms.
If someone is very in the model of the truest sense of debate in terms of argument flow and final weighing of points discussed, then probably not the debate to take.
For those that tend to end up more so having a discussion which often times ends up more vague at the end anyway. As a ton that I ive engaged in do. Then my hope is this weird start can actually help focus the further rounds.
Otherwise I've noticed we try to cover half of Christian theology, very deeply, all at the same time and only in a few rounds. Not really that do-able if the topic has any depth. Most do.
I'll work to refine my description. I've offended and set off more than one person without intention. But I don't want to stop this avenue of discussion all together as I've gotten into some really, really solid focused discussions this way.
I'm glad you feel that way. I can't speak for anyone. But it's incredibly frustrating when I see people who proport to be Christians and are just ignorantly popping off at others. Hey, if it helps this audience, I'll give you something to potentially redirect and refocus someone.
(Rather than saying look you're wrong, be it a correct statement) What i literally ask brothers and sisters i see doing this to others is how, in your approach, are you fulfilling Christ's command in 1 Peter?
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 ESV
I'll route for him. Such a pleasurable and engaging conversation. I feel i better understand where he's coming from and have personal follow-ups to investigate. Sounds like a successful exchanging of views and ideas.
I don't see an option which allows me to vote. It just says voting period where publish argument usually was. What am I missing? Sorry. One of the first debates I've done on here and also enter the voting period. I'm not trying to be difficult (just happen to be hahaha)
That was a great discussion. Thanks again for bearing with me.
The library was a great suggestion. I have a laptop. But it's hooked up with my work stuff and with 2 kids and some free time after they're in bed for my wife and I to hang. I just don't have the time to hop on. I'd have time for maybe one debate argument a day, if that, if I waited for good PC time.
Given this and other points raised, ill take the burden to better define terms and target discussions on debates in the future. I can handle a single discussion, but some of these turn into simultaneous discussions of many, major and different aspects of Christian theology.
Please feel free to tag me in any debates you are willing to put up with me on haha. I will be working to refine my style and presentation but that takes time. For now I'd simply expect a slowly evolving version of the style presented. Just trying to be honest and fair with time time I have to work. My kids won't be this young and time dependent forever.
Also, if you see anything that interests you from me, jump in! I've been opting for longer round settings to allow for a round or two of level setting, definition agreement, focusing of specific topic, etc.
Thanks again. It was fun and thought provoking.
Interesting. I'll need to spend some time going through that. Thanks for calling it out.
The addition of likely is one solely motivated to call out the people with who's definiton I would be in complete agreement. I mean, it's not that special. It's shared by those I regularly talk to at my church. By those running my church. By my Bible study members and ever single speaker, teacher, and scholar I follow.
The rest of the motivation is laid out in the description.
Nope. One such would be the law of conservation of matter/energy. It cannot be created or destroyed.
Stellar conversation so far. I'm really enjoying it. You've got me thinking deeply and critically. You're presenting your views very rationally and while passionately, not hatefully or with ego. Thank you!
I offer this debate as a digression from our first debate. And it's a discussion I really enjoy.
Terms:
Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Agreed.
Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable
Agreed.
Universe - Spacetime and their contents
Agreed.
- Please no solipsism.
Just looked that up. I'm good with that but hold to the idea some very big, large scale Universe questions are unprovable. I hope there's a distinction there. I think we know light exists and is packaged in photons for example. I think H20 to be 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom even if the inner building blocks are still being sorted out. Etc.
- These terms are not to be redefined at any point in the Debate.
Agreed!
- BoP is on Pro to provide facts that support the resolve.
May i propose we take one thing at a time. I'm happy to continue on via another debate if necessary. But I dont think this will be productive if I drop 5, 10 facts etc and we try to handle all
- Let's be respectful and have fun.
Please. My faith calls for me to share the reason for the hope I have in a way that is gentle and respectful. I seek to do that in all interactions. Not the judgmental and haughty interactions I see "Christians" offer up or more likely force down people's throats. It drives me nuts.
Final thought. I more so think the areas I can voice are a counter conclusion to that of secular science based upon the same evidence presented on the current theory.
ah read that as like you were ready with a one off. I understand where you're beefs are coming from in that section. I'm not out here to defend Turek haha.
If any of my arguments drift towards his, ill find out which are relevant to me haha
I've only watched his presentation and some follow up Q&A. Which argument are you referring to?
Hey man, if you're willing and have the patience to probably get frustrated at newby mistakes of debate style, premise, flow, etc.
I'm here to discuss, and learn, and to take in new evidence and views. Im all for it in whatever form.
hey, I realized i kind of ignored your question trying to explain.
To specifically answer, Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?
Up to you. I think i laid better, more specific groundwork of my stance in the opening. (Thanking you for your patience) feel free to bite on which ever part of both (or both) that works for you.
that's kind of the whole premise for wanting to start this. I think the "ultra-right wing conservatives" are wrong. Furthermore, I think they are portraying what's found in the Bible incorrectly and that it's causing major issues. I feel so many of the discussions I see are about a version of Christianity that is not one found in the Bible.
I'm actually not sure how to cancel. I'm happy to concede if that's an option.
I very much appreciate the offer on coaching. I'll be in touch if I get some more free time for this. I'm coming to the end of a work vacation and am about to get much busier.
Let's cancel. I'll be around. I'll be learning. When I can better round of terms and drive to a more solid debatable foundation, ill be back.
Thank you for your patience and understanding!
Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. This is in contrast to the commonly held assumption i run into that Christian faith is blind belief without evidence.
It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.
There are MANY who berate and judge and chastise for having doubts. This is not biblical.
It's this kind of two fold point I was looking to debate. I figured a legalistic Christian who's more worried about checking the boxes of religion than following Jesus. And it's a view which I think falsely portrays Christianity and pushes people from Jesus.
I wanted to engage on this topic. If im wrong, I'd like to know.