TOTH, thank you for sharing your experiences. I think our experiences may influence us differently.
The pursuit of peace is biblical objective so long as it is the kind of peace that Jesus taught.
I’ve been involved in several “battles” too. Intensive battles eventually get wearisome.
I was kinda naive when I started junior college and probably about as naive when I started Bible school and university undergrad studies. It was in that state of innocence and at that time junior and university education seriously challenged my faith. It seemed professors took great glee “disapproving” the Bible supposedly using the “findings of science”. To me it was heart rending!! I got so distressed I wondered about tossing my faith all together.
I needed help from the church but the person I had the most respect for said I needed to respect other people’s beliefs even if those beliefs, in my view, contradicted scripture. Specifically, he claimed the 6 day creation was open to various interpretations.
I was a mess. I was torn because my faith was being shredded to pieces at college AND at church!! I thought if science really “disproved” the 6 day creation then the Bible cannot be trusted. If the Bible isn’t true and can’t be trusted then forget about faith. It was psychological turmoil at its worst!!
But out of the darkness and fog came the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). This organization included scientists and theologians who took the Bible seriously and literally! Even more impressive was their actions on college campuses. They debated secular humanist professors and won debates using the finding of science!!
Remember the secular professors had used false science to basically ruin my faith and stomp my confidence in the Bible to the ground. Fortunately, Creation scientists had seriously rocked the humanist education establishments boat in the 70’s and 80’s when I was in class trying to keep my fledgling faith alive. But once the humanists were put on notice, they responded by doubling down against the biblical 6 day creation.
I consider those men and women who defended the truth of the Bible as nothing short of heroic!! They obediently fought the battle for the Bible at a time when I was vulnerable to falling victim to false teachings.
But secular humanist who slither around high school and college campus weren’t the only ones challenging the trustworthiness of scripture—some churches and some seminaries were doing the exact same thing!! To me, that was more spiritually troublesome.
To make the rest of my story short, thw dreaded experiences with spiritual and psychological battles might explain my low tolerance for false teachings, false science and for “Christian” compromisers.
All the way from Genesis to Revelations, false teaching has always been a serious annoyance to God and his prophets. And I won’t apologize for coming out hot against it either
Not only need to watch my bad composition but gota watch that spell checker too. If l misspell a word the spell checker inserts the correct spelling of some other word I didn’t want!!
Another thing, I’m not a very good writer. Seems I always need to re-edit and rephrase. There’s several ladies on here who write soooo crystal clear and it makes me just envious!! But Praise God he’s given them that talent—in the meantime, I need a writing clinic
I’m glad we’re sharing and I hope I’ve been respectful. I’m open to further discussion on this or any topic.
Please don’t feel you’re being disrespectful if you have something you want to disagree about.
In fact, if I post anywhere on this forum, you’re welcome to hold me accountable for anything I write. Anything is fair game. I think it’s right to hold another accountable. So giving an answer to a “why did you say that” question should be a healthy and welcome part of discussion.
I don’t mind being accountable to you, in fact I would welcome that very much. Sometimes I don’t realize I’m being disrespectful but receiving a perspective from you or anyone else might give me pause to reconsider.
An experience, I remember once having a smudge on my face but since I didn’t have access to a mirror, I needed someone to point it out to me. The same goes for things I post. Maybe, on occasion (I hope even less than that) l haven’t always chosen the right words or I wrote without thinking or whatever—l have to confess some of that has already happened—wish I could delete certain stuff but can’t on this forum. Some forums allow that, wish this one did.
Anyway, Thanks TOTH, if I haven’t adequately addressed the issues you’ve raised please keep responding.
May I create an example here. I don’t know if this example will help.
I call attention to your interpretation of Prov 27:15 “A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike“.
TOTH INTERPRETATION QUOTE:The rain doesn't care what you think. It will just keep doing what it's doing until it's done, no matter how much you are annoyed. If you're in your home and there is a leak with rain dripping through, the next worst thing is a second leak. That is how I see arguing. A wise person will see that first leak, patch it, and move on. That is how I believe our relationships with people should be. We see a gap, we patch it, and move forward.END TOTH QUOTE
The context of the verse is about a contentious woman who is likened to continually dropping rain.
The verse says nothing about fixing a leak in your home.
But if your interpretation is followed to its logical conclusion, it would mean patching up the woman’s mouth and moving forward.
I know you might content my evaluation of your argument is absurd but please examine the verse again for yourself. I’m trying not to be contentious here but you have yet to state your objective.
I keep stating the troubles associated with overlooking biblical contexts. We must strive to understand the >>authors<< original intent.
We must also stop reading things into scripture that aren’t there.
TOTH, I’m still trying to guess the purpose of your post.
Are you trying to communicate a theory you have about argument?
Are you trying to tell me something I’m doing that you don’t like. It would be great if you gave me an example.
I also don’t believe in “blatantly trying to best someone or bring them down to push your own idea or agenda...”.
You said, “If you're simply discussing what is better, the mountains or the beach, then I see it more as constructive discussion. Both can make valid points why they prefer a certain vacation spot without insisting this has to be "It' for everybody.”
I usually don’t discuss frivolous things like other people’s choices where they wanna live. As far as I’m concerned people can live anywhere they want just so they don’t call me sinner if I don’t want to live in the same place.
As for the verse from Proverbs, you didn’t provide any sort of transition from your theory about argument to the verse and your interpretation of it that l quoted for you below.
I’m just left wondering what relationship between the two you’re trying to connect? Prov 27:15 A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.
The rain doesn't care what you think. It will just keep doing what it's doing until it's done, no matter how much you are annoyed.
???
If you're in your home and there is a leak with rain dripping through, the next worst thing is a second leak. That is how I see arguing. A wise person will see that first leak, patch it, and move on. That is how I believe our relationships with people should be. We see a gap, we patch it, and move forward.
TOTH, ever since you first introduced the the subject you continue to offer up only succeeding notions of ambiguity on the subject of “argument”. You will not or cannot explain what it means to “argue”. All you’ve come up with is (my paraphrase)—it’s bad so just quit it!!
I’ve tried to help by showing to you different types of argument with a very concise summation of each. I was hoping that might help you narrow your focus.
In addition to that, you have yet to explain the purpose of the content for your post.
So let’s try this again.
First, the legitimacy of some forms of argument.
Some forms of argument are clearly legitimate forms of argument. These legitimate forms might take place on discussion forums among participants or in courthouses as lawyers prepare arguments. Other forms of argument might take place in theological settings like those Paul and Jesus engaged. Still other legitimate forms of argumentation take place on high school and college campuses at debate competitions. Certainly there are many forms of useful and legitimate forms of argumentation.
So, clearly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with preparing relevant arguments and rebuttals to arguments if carried out in a responsible manner.
Nevertheless, there are forms of argument that are NOT legitimate. This might include bitter back and forth bickering and quarrelsome emotional exchanges. Obviously these kinds of arguments are useless because they’re not intended to settle disagreements.
TOTH, l didn’t start this conversation with you. You willing weighed in with your thoughts and I welcome that. But all I’m asking for is clarity and up to this point you haven’t provided that.
I think if you truly believe your point of view is earnest then please take the time to explain it.
