Why do we argue?

I love it

'We truly love the Lord, the Lord is of primary importance in our life so of course we want to discuss Him. The problem comes in when our discussions are in disobedience to the Lord we love. We are to discuss his ways and all about him without judging others, we are to let others choose their own way just as God lets us each choose even if we choose to not even believe he is real.

Another problem comes in when we don't listen to Christ as Christ explains how the Lord looks at murder. Christ tells us that we aren't to judge people, even to judge them as fools. The discussions become about judging people instead of judging the ways of the Lord.

Nothing new under the sun is based on sons of man (first adam) before Paul (second Adam) woke from Saul's beliefs that was law and good at it for sons of man but blind to spirit awakening as sons of God in man as same as him, Paul knew it was all allegory and Imagination was God in man not classic theology Saul and all sons of man are blind about thinking like sons of God in them, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Great point. We need to examine scriptures we're being shown, not just answer with scripture that seems contrary.

Allegory and Imagination?

Do you believe ALL the bible @glen55 ?

When the issue of circumcision arose from the men from Judea, Paul and Barnabas disputed with them. The matter was taken to the apostolic and elder council in Jerusalem.

There, it is recorded, "the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter."

Within the meeting this is recorded:

"And... there had been much dispute..." I have been involved in similar discussions and I imagine the discussion regarding circumcision was quite lively.

Then, we see Peter stand to address the group. After he says his piece, this is written: "Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul."

Paul and Barnabas report that "God worked through them, many miracles and wonders, while they were with the Gentiles."

After the group was silent, James the brother of Jesus finalizes the matter by his judgement. He declares "Therefore I judge..." Notice it's not "we judge" or "we have voted". James the brother of Jesus presides over the council, not Peter. After much discussion, it is the judgement of James that goes forth from the council to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.

In the letter, although James judges the matter, it is recognized as the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the group "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..."

We argue here, and amongst ourselves nearly everywhere you find believers, for several reasons:
1) Democracy has entered the church. Everyone's view is equally valid, and therefore, invalid. Also, elders vote on church direction instead of being led by the Spirit.
2) We look to seminaries and colleges to validate leadership. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit separated men for leadership and sent apostles to recognize elders. These were men who had been tried by many fiery trials and had shown their faith and commitment to the Lord. We have nullified the Spirit's ability to give us direction and have cancelled the apostolic calling all together.
3) We've kicked out the prophets who teach believers that we can hear from God. Now, the people rule. The issue or person who gets the most votes wins or gets rehired. This is the mystery of the Nicolaitans, whereby the church is dominated by the will of the majority.
4) Dispensationalism. Even though clear patterns of church governance can be read in scriptures, we think "that was then, this is now".

Imagine here, if you will, a recognized council of leaders who, after much discussion, would let the judgement of matters up to a specific leader. He would say, "We've discussed the matter of water baptism... Here is my judgement on the issue." And then, what is declared is the doctrine of the site. It's impossible, right? We don't really know each other, we don't know how each one has been dealt with by the Lord, and many of us, so addicted to democracy, would never permit such an arrangement, anyway. So arguments will go on here as they do in the church. And, like the church in the world, few will mature, forever being tossed to a fro by winds of doctrine.

Don't use phonetics to contrive the meanings of words.

The word is derived from niko (people's triumph) and laodikeia (people's justice).

I would encourage you to do more homework rather than to make empty assertions. The snippet ‘nico’ is related to ‘nike’ (victory) and ‘nikao’ (overcome).

This is why commanded to "rightly divide the word of truth"- 2 Tim 2:15 (i.e. identify correct distinctions). People often assume two similar passages are expounding on the same subject when they are actually not. That is a common mistake that leads people to think they are in conflict.
In logic, the Failure to Recognize Distinctions fallacy means—Linking two ideas together in all aspects simply because they share similarities in certain aspects, i.e. just because two things have one thing in common does not mean they have all things in common.

The system of doctrine that isn't contradicted by any Scripture is the correct one. There is a Biblical explanation for every alleged contradiction.