Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Debate Topics


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Due to a recent topic that was posted here on Online Baptist we are thinking about having a debate forum where only certain 3 or 4 members can discuss in a debate format (not a free for all). 

 

I'll be away next week, but let's get the ball rolling on topics. Please post topics below that you feel would make a great discussion and I will choose one when I get back. Thank you.

 

Brother Matt,

 

In my other thread, wherein I stirred up this "pot-o'-mess," I specified a number of topics in which I would desire to engage for discussion and "debate," and also specified the specific individuals with whom I would seek to make the engagement.  Certainly, into the future I may desire to engage on other topics with other individuals.  Yet for me in the present, that list still stands.

 

Sincerely, I do thank you for your willingness to consider this matter and to put forth the work necessary to make it a possibility.  Although I have done so, it was not really my intent to put a great "mess" of work on your plate, for which you had not previously planned.  So again, I say thank you.  I pray that the Lord our God will provide you with the direction and the time to proceed in a manner that will bring glory unto His Holy Name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Geneva,

 

I agree with what you were trying to say. In the NT we have those things you mentioned put forth. The NT speaks to the sin of murder, adultery and such, as well as the importance of righteousness. Under the NT, with our renewed hearts and the Holy Ghost within us, we should have a desire to live in such a way we won't be violating those "laws" without having to actually write them all down and check that we are careful to keep them.

 

If we truly love God with all our being and love others as ourselves our lives will reflect that, just as Christ said, and the whole law will be fulfilled even though attempting to fulfill the law isn't a specific (or legalistic type) goal.

 

These important matters are why it's sometimes easy to tell when a "Christian" or even a "good Christian" may not actually be a biblical Christian, when they proclaim to live on what amounts to hyper-grace or they "try" to keep the ten commandments.

 

Our heart, and what flows from there, announces who we are who we are living for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Geneva,

 

I agree with what you were trying to say. In the NT we have those things you mentioned put forth. The NT speaks to the sin of murder, adultery and such, as well as the importance of righteousness. Under the NT, with our renewed hearts and the Holy Ghost within us, we should have a desire to live in such a way we won't be violating those "laws" without having to actually write them all down and check that we are careful to keep them.

 

If we truly love God with all our being and love others as ourselves our lives will reflect that, just as Christ said, and the whole law will be fulfilled even though attempting to fulfill the law isn't a specific (or legalistic type) goal.

 

These important matters are why it's sometimes easy to tell when a "Christian" or even a "good Christian" may not actually be a biblical Christian, when they proclaim to live on what amounts to hyper-grace or they "try" to keep the ten commandments.

 

Our heart, and what flows from there, announces who we are who we are living for.

 

* I LIKE THIS. * [ I don't get much chance to 'like' anything on the weekends, for some unknown reason.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where does the wrath of God begin in eschatology.

 

What are Baptist Fundamentals? 

 

As for the eschatology? Who knows for sure? Opinions always get in the way somewhere with someone.

Baptist Fundamentals? What the word of God 'says', according to what each individual has been led by the Holy Spirit to believe.

I say it that way, because of being on this site, I have learned that not all is as clear between the brethren as I was led to believe.

 

And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm going to stir up a bit of a debate here (oh the irony) by saying that I think this is a really bad time to be initiating a formal debating section of the forum and getting stuck into more debating. While the OB rules have always stressed that this site is first and foremost about fellowship and not debate, I do believe it's appropriate to 'move with the times' and respond to the needs of members, in the spirit of the rules being made for man, not the other way around. :icon_smile:  Moreover I've seen these semi-formal two person online debates work really well on other sites, so I think the suggestion is very good in principle. But I think the timing is wrong, for these reasons:

1) Debating has been at the forefront of OB activity for the last six months or so. I don't think many would disagree that most of it has generated more heat than light and I think most would also agree that fellowship here is at a low ebb. I think as an online  community (hope we are still one! :mellow: ) our immediate need is more fellowship, not more debate opportunites, and we should be looking at ways to try to achieve that. Yes, I do appreciate the two aren't mutually exclusive--I'm trying to draw the same distinction the OB rules do.

2) It might be argued that facilitating more structured/formal debate on here would be good for fellowship, as it would promote more respectful debate and less quarreling. Right now I can't see that happening as generally speaking folk on here have too little respect for each other or forum authority. I think the 'formal' debates will get curtailed within just a few posts and the topics will spill over onto 'informal' threads anyway (as has already been suggested), with the usual results...

3) There's a whole camp that right now are saying that many of the debate topics of late shouldn't have been up for discussion on an IFB forum, including eschatology and >even women wearing pants. Until that matter is settled on here (if it even can be), should any of those topics come up there will just be more strife.

 

Sorry for sounding like a cynic! If anything I think the forum could do with a moratorium on theological debate for a month--I've even suggested that to the mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ali, I will pick up on one point - that some say certain things should not be up for discussion.

I think you are wrong on that one.

Lots of things used to be discussed here.
Now, certain people do not 'discuss' they simply push their agenda.

For instance, there is a difference between discussing Calvinism and promoting it.

The IFB only area used to be particularly good for this. There was far less angst and far more discussion than there is now because 'discussion' occurred not argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm going to stir up a bit of a debate here (oh the irony) by saying that I think this is a really bad time to be initiating a formal debating section of the forum and getting stuck into more debating. While the OB rules have always stressed that this site is first and foremost about fellowship and not debate, I do believe it's appropriate to 'move with the times' and respond to the needs of members, in the spirit of the rules being made for man, not the other way around. :icon_smile:  Moreover I've seen these semi-formal two person online debates work really well on other sites, so I think the suggestion is very good in principle. But I think the timing is wrong, for these reasons:

1) Debating has been at the forefront of OB activity for the last six months or so. I don't think many would disagree that most of it has generated more heat than light and I think most would also agree that fellowship here is at a low ebb. I think as an online  community (hope we are still one! :mellow: ) our immediate need is more fellowship, not more debate opportunites, and we should be looking at ways to try to achieve that. Yes, I do appreciate the two aren't mutually exclusive--I'm trying to draw the same distinction the OB rules do.

2) It might be argued that facilitating more structured/formal debate on here would be good for fellowship, as it would promote more respectful debate and less quarreling. Right now I can't see that happening as generally speaking folk on here have too little respect for each other or forum authority. I think the 'formal' debates will get curtailed within just a few posts and the topics will spill over onto 'informal' threads anyway (as has already been suggested), with the usual results...

3) There's a whole camp that right now are saying that many of the debate topics of late shouldn't have been up for discussion on an IFB forum, including eschatology and >even women wearing pants. Until that matter is settled on here (if it even can be), should any of those topics come up there will just be more strife.

 

Sorry for sounding like a cynic! If anything I think the forum could do with a moratorium on theological debate for a month--I've even suggested that to the mods.

 

 

Ali, I will pick up on one point - that some say certain things should not be up for discussion.

I think you are wrong on that one.

Lots of things used to be discussed here.
Now, certain people do not 'discuss' they simply push their agenda.

For instance, there is a difference between discussing Calvinism and promoting it.

The IFB only area used to be particularly good for this. There was far less angst and far more discussion than there is now because 'discussion' occurred not argument.

I will try not to "speak out of class".

 

In the back room (mod/admin area) we have looked at some possibilities. Bro Matt will be getting with us more when he has a chance and we shall see what he intends. There will prOBably be some restructure of forum and members (how that will look wasn't explained yet) and some definite crackdown (complete with relocations or deletions of posts/threads and warning points for offenders) on the spillover prOBlem.

 

As to "debates" I personally don't favor nor condone them.    ( Rom 1:29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,                         and

 2Co 12:20  For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: )
That, however, was a request that Bro. Matt is seeking to accommodate in as amicable a manner as possible.
 
Anywho --- patience, we shall see what we shall see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of the prOBlems with what may end up being debated is that most of the major debate issues have already been gone over thoroughly here before to the point where it's clear to the OBjective OBserver which side is biblical and which isn't; or it's clear that neither position can establish a 100% biblically clear and sound position, which leaves us with the matter still up to how one views the points that aren't 100% clear as to which side of the debate they fall on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

One of the prOBlems with what may end up being debated is that most of the major debate issues have already been gone over thoroughly here before to the point where it's clear to the OBjective OBserver which side is biblical and which isn't; or it's clear that neither position can establish a 100% biblically clear and sound position, which leaves us with the matter still up to how one views the points that aren't 100% clear as to which side of the debate they fall on.

The prOBlem being that there have been, are and will always be (both in real life and cyber life) people who can't just lay a view out and then leave it for the Lord to deal with folks on -- if they can't get someone to audibly cry "uncle" they can't shut up (no matter how many times they have to repeat the same thing). Its as if the Lord can't do the jOB.

 

With lost people dealing with an issue, I understand -- with saved ones, I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I for one am for this debate section.  What happens in the current discussions (if you can call them that) is that there are too many participants, all with a slightly different angle on both sides, and it is too difficult to actually have decent discussions.  Also, because of the many participants, it is impossible to properly answer the barrage of counterpoints.  Limiting the discussion to two people would actually allow them to concentrate on the topic at hand, remove the many rabbit trails introduced by the many participants, and also allow the moderators to actually stay on top of the discussion. 

As the formats are currently structured, these discussions generally turn into a twisted mess.

 

And I think this is what has generated so much "debate" (actually arguing) over the last several months.  It is clear that there are some here that have no other purpose than to push their agenda.  The prOBlem is that most other people come for the fellowship, and find it inconceivable that such agendas would be allowed to be advanced for so long.  They themselves do not have the time to put into a concerted effort to refute these issues.  Any attempts at such refutation get lost in the maze of countless participants and the rabbit trails they bring.  So people have "given up" on the fighting, and either watch from a distance, or leave entirely. 

 

I appreciate Pastor Markle's openness on this when he said he has time constraints, and may not always be able to respond immediately.   That gives the "debaters" the liberty to tend to their present issues at home, and then work on the "debate" as time permits.  Under the current format, this would be impossible to do because of the many responders and issues that are brought to the table. 

 

This proposed format, however Br. Matt might be able to work it out, could actually be beneficial to the entire group in that there would be a clear progression of argument without so many side issues.  They can deal with the topic on hand, and really get somewhere with it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The prOBlem being that there have been, are and will always be (both in real life and cyber life) people who can't just lay a view out and then leave it for the Lord to deal with folks on -- if they can't get someone to audibly cry "uncle" they can't shut up (no matter how many times they have to repeat the same thing). Its as if the Lord can't do the jOB.

 

With lost people dealing with an issue, I understand -- with saved ones, I don't get it.

At the same time, If the one who knows the truth doesn't continually speak out against the false doctrine, the truth will eventually fade away in the shadows, covered by several pages of new threads or posts.

Any time false doctrine is being taught, one who knows the truth should speak out and boldly proclaim that truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...