The wandering logic to save one's face

[RickShafer]

I get tired of debating and having the opponent keep changing the parameters
of the debate.
It's fight or flight, and they all fly away on wings of non sequiturs.
Just finished one, where the opponent continually changed the terms.
I'd add, he'd use what I added to say,....."well of course! Didn't you know that?"
And slightly change what I said, calling into question my cognitive ability.
Honestly folks, I know we all want to save face, but this is more a sign of lucifer than
just about any other grievous sin you could imagine.

Just remember, the importance of what you say is way past saving face.
We have to answer for it.
So be sure before you enter a debate that you believe what you say.
Because our words will be required of us.

 

[Tintin]

He wasn't the only one doing that in 'that' thread now, was he?

 

[RickShafer]

He wasn't the only one doing that in 'that' thread now, was he?

He was accusing me of not knowing the Bible.
B.T.W., you know witchcraft is wrong, he ended up defending Minerva, a pagan idol, to defend his position of claiming H.P. is harmless.
There are better ways of defending a fictional series based on witchcraft then to say an idol isn't so evil.
(The idol is nothing, it is the idolatry)

 

[Relena7]

Debating is pointless.

This is one thing I've never seen, nor will likely ever see come from 2 completely opposing sides in debates, ever.

"You know, I have never thought of it that way before. You are absolutely right." Followed by silence.

Yeah, never.

I'm thinking people must debate for the "sport" of it, because I can't think of any other logical reason. It's certainly not productive. If anything, it firmly corners people even further into their own egos more than before, making them more stubborn and less likely to be open minded (based on many observations).

 

[Nautilus]

yes all the all harm from harry potter with those raving gangs of pre-teen pagans sacrificing neighborhood cats to power their polyjuice spells...

 

[RickShafer]

I here what your saying Relena,
but Paul debated the pharisees.
Martin Luther debated Jonathan Eck.
Augustine debated Pelagius.
How else are you going to get a point of view across?

 

[Relena7]

I here what your saying.
But Paul debated the pharisees.
Martin Luther debated Jonathan Eck.
Augustine debated Pelagius.
How else are you going to get a point of view across?

Are you inviting me to debate on whether or not people should debate?

 

[RickShafer]

Are you inviting me to debate on whether or not people should debate?

No. - Ha,ha,ha!!!
Actually, after I posted, I started to think.
Usually if someone changes their mind, it is after quiet bible study.
So there you go........(You are correct)

 

[Stephen63]

I get tired of debating and having the opponent keep changing the parameters
of the debate.
It's fight or flight, and they all fly away on wings of non sequiturs.
Just finished one, where the opponent continually changed the terms.
I'd add, he'd use what I added to say,....."well of course! Didn't you know that?"
And slightly change what I said, calling into question my cognitive ability.
Honestly folks, I know we all want to save face, but this is more a sign of lucifer than
just about any other grievous sin you could imagine.

Just remember, the importance of what you say is way past saving face.
We have to answer for it.
So be sure before you enter a debate that you believe what you say.
Because our words will be required of us.

I hear ya, man. Some like to show off their Bible knowledge. Many like to psychologically trap you in your own words, just as the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus. It's just as evil now as it was back then. It's really bad when you catch yourself playing by their rules. Sometimes I think they do it knowing in advance they will either win the debate with their psychological deceit or turn you into one of them, making it a win-win situation.

 

[RickShafer]

Good points Steve.
It's amazing how that pride kicks up.
I need to watch it.
Because I'm really as guilty as them.
In a perverse way, maybe I enjoy it.
I'm trying to tone it down.
Maybe, like Relena said, debate isn't the way to go.
Thanks brother.

 

[Relena7]

@RickShafer, I saw your point too. I just thought the irony was funny.

Yeah it's good to get your point of view across. There's definitely a time and place for that stuff. But sometimes there comes a time when it becomes a dead end of disagreements. When it escalates to the point of frustration and unproductive jumping to conclusions or name-calling, it's probably time for everyone to go out and get some fresh air and pray/meditate.

 

[Stephen63]

Perhaps we should keep a copy of this post to use every time we are retaliated against:

"I've done what God required me to do, I've told you"

Here's another one we might be able to use when we're done:

*dusts off feet with this conversation*

 

[Blain]

Well the problem with debating is that it doesn't stay a debate for long. ppls beliefs and their relationship with god often get put into question by the others person. It can get very brutal, and hurtful. I am also guilty of pride and accusing on debates, its easy to fall into. you just have to know when to dust your feet and walk away. Rick you and i may disagree about hp, but you are someone who i know knows Jesus christ for who he really is. So that is why i never call your faith into question, i know better;]

 

[JGPS]

B.T.W., you know witchcraft is wrong, he ended up defending Minerva, a pagan idol, to defend his position of claiming H.P. is harmless.

Do you even read? I said that there is no harm in the name Minerva itself... It's a name. The idol is nothing, nor is there anyone doing harm by being named after a pagan god...

But if you don't like wandering lets stick to some basic points until we can agree or agree to disagree. Are you game?


Point 1: Being named after a pagan god is not in and of itself evil. Many people have such names or their names are derived from such. As I said, I know a local waitress named Aphrodite. My father in law teases her about it all the time, but it is not in and of itself harmful.

Point 2: The chart you posted here is erroneous and forcing parallels that don't exist. One such parallel is the parallel to an occult order, which has 2 men and a woman. The similarity to Hogwarts hierarchy is incidental, and upon examination does not match that parallel. The Hogwarts hierarchy may have any combination of men and women in it and does not follow the occult form.

Point 3: The Logos is the mind of God and His reasoning. It is not limited to His written word. The term logos in general includes both speech and reason.

Good points Steve.
It's amazing how that pride kicks up.
I need to watch it.
Because I'm really as guilty as them.
In a perverse way, maybe I enjoy it.
I'm trying to tone it down.
Maybe, like Relena said, debate isn't the way to go.
Thanks brother.

Fairly said. If you wish to debate let us set parameters for our discussion and go from there. I only care to make these three points at this juncture, and am open to disagreement with the third. If you have specific points you wish to make, or other perimeters to set on our discussion by all means lay them down.

 

[shawntc]

I think part of the problem is that debating over the Internet is useless. You're just text to the person. Words don't hold nearly as much weight. Plus people who try to debate you often aren't sincere seekers. They already have presuppositions - God does not exist, 'x' activity is acceptable, etc. - and they just want to ridicule and go around the same circles. Internet debate is good for nothing more than practicing, but I doubt it'll be really effective.

 

[RickShafer]

Do you even read? I said that there is no harm in the name Minerva itself... It's a name. The idol is nothing, nor is there anyone doing harm by being named after a pagan god... (It's not about the name.
It's the idol)

But if you don't like wandering lets stick to some basic points until we can agree or agree to disagree. Are you game?


Point 1: Being named after a pagan god is not in and of itself evil. Many people have such names or their names are derived from such. As I said, I know a local waitress named Aphrodite. My father in law teases her about it all the time, but it is not in and of itself harmful.(It's not the name, it's the God - Minerva)

Point 2: The chart you posted here is erroneous and forcing parallels that don't exist. One such parallel is the parallel to an occult order, which has 2 men and a woman. The similarity to Hogwarts hierarchy is incidental, and upon examination does not match that parallel. The Hogwarts hierarchy may have any combination of men and women in it and does not follow the occult form.(No it is not!) You claim falsehoods.

Point 3: The Logos is the mind of God and His reasoning. It is not limited to His written word. The term logos in general includes both speech and reason. (But no man can read the mind of God, that's why we have His word)




Fairly said. If you wish to debate let us set parameters for our discussion and go from there. I only care to make these three points at this juncture, and am open to disagreement with the third. If you have specific points you wish to make, or other perimeters to set on our discussion by all means lay them down.

Honestly there is nothing to discuss, you are making false accusations.
In effect, you are saying 3 is 5.
You are not abiding by the rules of debate.
You are making your own rules up as you go.

 

[JGPS]

Many like to psychologically trap you in your own words, just as the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus. It's just as evil now as it was back then.

Jesus trapped the pharisees, not the other way around... Honestly, the anti-intellectualism, it burns.

 

[RickShafer]

Jesus trapped the pharisees, not the other way around... Honestly, the anti-intellectualism, it burns.

Jesus didn't lie though.
You flat out lie.

 

[RickShafer]

Also, you acussed me of this: "It's rather foolish to tout age when it doesn't come with experience on the matter... As I asserted in another thread I still maintain you are somewhat reprobate in your actions, that was a point to which I could not even get a reply too. Don't speak of Logic without knowing the Logos."

Here is my response :
Logos: (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning.
So it is thus: "don't speak of logic without knowing the Logos."
You referred to the Word, - not logical reasoning, but The Word.

So you need to stop being deceitful, you didn't say don't speak of logic without knowing logos.
You said, don't speak of logic without knowing THE Logos.
So right there you are wrong in saying you were referring to logic. 'Logic' does not have the anticedant 'THE'.

Unless you meant: Don't speak of logic without knowing the logic?????
(Is that what you meant?) - I didn't think so.
Yet you harped on that as if it was what you meant, when it evidently isn't.
You are beside yourself.

 

[Relena7]

Jesus didn't lie though.
You flat out lie.

Uh-ohs.

*ducks for cover*