Hyper-dialectic

[aspen]

Do you find yourself uncomfortable agreeing with people about theology? Do you enjoy looking for points you disagree with and pointing it out? Is there only room for one person to be right? When was the last time you agreed with someone or some point on this board without clarification or re-framing the post?

The reason I am asking is because it seems like we are taught to only notice and comment on ideas we disagree with - as if agreement is not interesting or unoriginal and not worth looking at or pointing out.

Is it ok to agree with 70% of a post and allow the disagreement to stand without comment?

 

[Shirley]

In my opinion yes! It seems that some even look to see if one word is wrong so they can disagree.

 

[Episkopos]

Do you find yourself uncomfortable agreeing with people about theology? Do you enjoy looking for points you disagree with and pointing it out? Is there only room for one person to be right? When was the last time you agreed with someone or some point on this board without clarification or re-framing the post?

The reason I am asking is because it seems like we are taught to only notice and comment on ideas we disagree with - as if agreement is not interesting or unoriginal and not worth looking at or pointing out.

Is it ok to agree with 70% of a post and allow the disagreement to stand without comment?

That depends on whether the 30% nullifies the truth of the 70% or not!

 

[FHII]

Remember what Jesus said about what a little leaven did?

 

[justaname]

I love to agree when it is agreeable. If it is that I don't agree, I shouldn't agree for the sake of agreement or appeasement. It is for us to speak truth and light in a world of darkness. Think of it this way, if you heard someone teaching the gospel to another and it was only 70% correct, would you voice the voice of truth and correction, or would you stand by silent?

 

[tomwebster]

...
Is it ok to agree with 70% of a post and allow the disagreement to stand without comment?

as, how about a nice glass of 70% pure water. Is 70% truth, true?

In my opinion yes! It seems that some even look to see if one word is wrong so they can disagree.

Shiley, read Matthew 4:6, and tell me if the Scripture quote was correct or at least close enough.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

I actually read posts for only a couple reasons. 1-maybe I'll learn something, or see a different view point which in turn will change something in my mind. 2- maybe I can add something valuable to the conversation, or help someone.

If I disagree, then I disagree, if I agree, then I agree.

There's not always a need to point out something that you disagree with. Sometimes the best thing that can be said is nothing. Agreeing is an easier route, but, leads to an end of the conversation. Ending a conversation that starts with 2 people agreeing leads to an unsatisfying relationship. There is nothing less stimulating that someone saying, "Chocolate ice cream is great!" the other party says, "Yep!". End of conversation. However, if someone adds, "I like chocolate ice cream, but, strawberry is better." a whole new dynamic of communication has developed.

See, people need a little conflict to have a conversation and to stimulate thought. There's so much good that comes from a debate, or even a slightly heated discussion. That's how people learn about eachother, and themselves. Even in this discussion here I just learned something about me.

I have very little in common with any of my friends. Seeing that some sort of conflict apparently stimulates me, that would explain my friends being so vastly different from me and eachother. Infact, my friends have only met eachother, but, are not friends with eachother.

 

[aspen]

I actually read posts for only a couple reasons. 1-maybe I'll learn something, or see a different view point which in turn will change something in my mind. 2- maybe I can add something valuable to the conversation, or help someone.

If I disagree, then I disagree, if I agree, then I agree.

There's not always a need to point out something that you disagree with. Sometimes the best thing that can be said is nothing. Agreeing is an easier route, but, leads to an end of the conversation. Ending a conversation that starts with 2 people agreeing leads to an unsatisfying relationship. There is nothing less stimulating that someone saying, "Chocolate ice cream is great!" the other party says, "Yep!". End of conversation. However, if someone adds, "I like chocolate ice cream, but, strawberry is better." a whole new dynamic of communication has developed.

See, people need a little conflict to have a conversation and to stimulate thought. There's so much good that comes from a debate, or even a slightly heated discussion. That's how people learn about eachother, and themselves. Even in this discussion here I just learned something about me.

I have very little in common with any of my friends. Seeing that some sort of conflict apparently stimulates me, that would explain my friends being so vastly different from me and eachother. Infact, my friends have only met eachother, but, are not friends with eachother.

I like what you said about agreeing without adding anything or in a superficial way. I used to attend a Bible Study where everyone though agreement was encouragement and anything less was calling Jesus a liar.....

Basically, it turned into a pep rally for Jesus, devoid of any real discussion or growth.

I do think that conversations can be filled with superficial positives and negatives however. Sometimes people just want to fight because they disagree with another person's worldview so nothing they can say is acceptable.