Topic: The Nature of Christian Debate

[LBK]

Is bayonetting babies even morally wrong even when God commands it, as he effectively did according to Hosea? Apparently 8th Century Israel didn't share your morality.

Wait ... they had bayonets in 8th Century Israel???   

Spears, daggers and swords have the same effect, I'm sorry to say. 

[theistgal]

Is bayonetting babies even morally wrong even when God commands it, as he effectively did according to Hosea? Apparently 8th Century Israel didn't share your morality.

Wait ... they had bayonets in 8th Century Israel???   

Spears, daggers and swords have the same effect, I'm sorry to say. 

Well, yes, but I don't believe they were called bayonets at the time.

[Romanicus]

Wait ... they had bayonets in 8th Century Israel???   

Yes. They did. They also had lace, powdered wigs, and snuff.

"And when thou placest the snuff up thy nose, thou shalt turn thy head, lest thou sneezest, and thy spittle stain thy neighbor's wig and lace."
(Apocryphal proverb. 8th cent. BC)

[theistgal]

Wait ... they had bayonets in 8th Century Israel???   

Yes. They did. They also had lace, powdered wigs, and snuff.

"And when thou placest the snuff up thy nose, thou shalt turn thy head, lest thou sneezest, and thy spittle stain thy neighbor's wig and lace."
(Apocryphal proverb. 8th cent. BC)

(rubbing eyes) whaaaa ... is it 2013 already??? 

[Asteriktos]

Ahh, GiC, I would that you were still among us! The posts of the sensationalists we have on oc.net these days are but empty husks compared to the well-reasoned outlandishness you would routinely gift to us. You didn't just offend us, you put a smile on our faces while doing so.

JamesR, are you paying attention? If you wish to learn from a master, go and read the entire post history of GiC... you will be richly rewarded!

[DanM]

Dont debate, just tell the truth.

What happens when two people both think they are telling the truth, yet contradict one another?

I am really sorry I missed this interesting topic when it was timely.  My answer to your question is that they use truth-seeking devices to distinguish false from true, partly true from true, partly false from wholly false etc.  

One truth-seeking device is the Toulmin Model of Argument.  According to Toulmin, we are obliged to adduce GROUNDS to support our CLAIM, and the GROUNDS and the CLAIM are connected by a WARRANT.
E.g., suppose you and I wish to eat out.  I want to have Chinese food and you want Mexican.  I argue that we should have Chinese [CLAIM], since we had Mexican last time [GROUNDS] and we had previously agreed to take turns [WARRANT].  You might require me to provide support for my WARRANT by citing its BACKING, which I might do by arguing that taking turns is fair since we are equals.  If I feel it necessary, I might provide a QUALIFIER to hint at how sure I am about my CLAIM.  I might even mention what kind of REBUTTAL is possible by indicating what circumstances might reduce the strength of my CLAIM.  It is usually not necessary for every argument to cite all six parts; many get by on CLAIM, GROUNDS, WARRANT and BACKING.

If both parties work through the Toulmin Model conscientiously, they should be able to figure out where and why they contradict each other.  The problem (in my experience) is that most people do not want to bother with grounds, warrants or backing.  In fact, they use truth-shunning devices:  fallacies in general and ad hominem attacks in particular.  Or they simply duck all discussion, which is perhaps the ultimate truth-shunning device.  

The Toulmin model is not the only truth-seeking device available.  I prefer Christoph Lumer's practical argumentation, but make copious use of Walton's argumentation schemes.  The informal logic literature is very exciting.

[wgw]

I have been reflecting on my own experiences here, and elsewhere, and also the remarks of FrGiryus and others.  I have come to feel that debates between Orthodox brethren should be conducted solely on the basis of a respectful, loving, mutual search for Truth.  More aggressive styles of debate, which I regret to say I have used in debating with fellow Orthodox in the past, should in fact be reserved for debating with a minority of vocal non-Orthodox who are seeking to proselytize people to various dubious cults; in dealing with the evangelists of heresies.

[TheTrisagion]

I have been reflecting on my own experiences here, and elsewhere, and also the remarks of FrGiryus and others.  I have come to feel that debates between Orthodox brethren should be conducted solely on the basis of a respectful, loving, mutual search for Truth.  More aggressive styles of debate, which I regret to say I have used in debating with fellow Orthodox in the past, should in fact be reserved for debating with a minority of vocal non-Orthodox who are seeking to proselytize people to various dubious cults; in dealing with the evangelists of heresies.

Aggressive debating is for someone to feel better about themselves. We all do it, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that it is in any way beneficial for the free exchange of ideas. It is merely self-stroking one's ego.

[mike]

I have been reflecting on my own experiences here, and elsewhere, and also the remarks of FrGiryus and others.  I have come to feel that debates between Orthodox brethren should be conducted solely on the basis of a respectful, loving, mutual search for Truth.  More aggressive styles of debate, which I regret to say I have used in debating with fellow Orthodox in the past, should in fact be reserved for debating with a minority of vocal non-Orthodox who are seeking to proselytize people to various dubious cults; in dealing with the evangelists of heresies.

<popcorn>

[wgw]

I have been reflecting on my own experiences here, and elsewhere, and also the remarks of FrGiryus and others.  I have come to feel that debates between Orthodox brethren should be conducted solely on the basis of a respectful, loving, mutual search for Truth.  More aggressive styles of debate, which I regret to say I have used in debating with fellow Orthodox in the past, should in fact be reserved for debating with a minority of vocal non-Orthodox who are seeking to proselytize people to various dubious cults; in dealing with the evangelists of heresies.

Aggressive debating is for someone to feel better about themselves. We all do it, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that it is in any way beneficial for the free exchange of ideas. It is merely self-stroking one's ego.

I agree; it's not conducive to the pursuit of truth.   It is also not useful if one actually hopes to change the mind of one's interlocutor.

[Alpha60]

What if we are not respectful enough, and what if a newbie enquirer is not courageous enough? As Christians, should we seek to avoid scandalizing, or should we be blunt at all costs?

HAHAHA.  Boy did you put me in a wierd position.  I know that the "right" answer is to not scandalize.  But me personally, I say whatever needs to be said.  If people arn't "man enough" to hear their mistakes...well that's their problem then isn't it? 

Anyway, in the end I like what PetertheAleut said.

I really like Fr. Nebjosa’s communications technique.   He taught me about the importance of apatheia.   I hope at some point in the future he has the prerequisite time to rejoin us in some capacity.

[rakovsky]

I had to look that one up.

Apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια; from a- "without" and pathos "suffering" or "passion"), in Stoicism, refers to a state of mind in which one is not disturbed by the passions. It is best translated by the word equanimity rather than indifference.
Apatheia - Wikipedia