You Are Being Divisive!

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Do you love it if they disagree with you after you explain it?

Of course I Don’t love it. But I know If there Heart is right God will help me to direct them.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Of course I Don’t love it. But I know If there Heart is right God will help me to direct them.

[rgcraig]

Great post Miz!

[Irreligious]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Of course I Don’t love it. But I know If there Heart is right God will help me to direct them.

Love your answer.

I don't mean to add to your answer, but I think I've experienced God leading me even if...maybe especially if.....their heart ISN'T right.

I LOVE engaging in constructive dialogue with atheists and people who are anti-Christian. One of the greatest changes that has ever occurred in my life was when I set out to develop as many authentic relationships as possible with angry, anti-church, anti-Christian people and atheists. I've learned SO much and the Holy Spirit has done all the things that I could have never done.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Irreligious

Mizpeh,

I must admit that you caught me off guard with this. I wouldn't have expected this and I think you just made my day.

History and the Bible is FULL of people who changed the world by dissenting, bucking the system, and refusing to accept things the way they were.

Bible:
Elihu, David (battle with Goliath), Moses, Paul, most of all, Jesus.

History:
Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bill Hybels, many others.

Thanks Mizpeh.

Jason Dulle wrote that article and posted it on his blog. I agree with him.

Irreligious, you barely know anything about me except that I believe Spirit baptism is evidenced by speaking in other tongues. I might surprise you on a few other things.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Great post Miz!

I wish I could take the credit but Jason Dulle wrote it.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why is it that when someone challenges a traditional teaching/practice, he is often labeled as “divisive” or a “troublemaker,” and is summarily dismissed? It may be true that the individual has a divisive attitude or is acting in a troublesome manner, but the attitude in which he dissents or questions a particular doctrine/practice is separate from the arguments he presents against it. Someone may be the biggest jerk on the planet, but their attitude has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid, and their beliefs correct. Simply pointing out their bad attitude does not answer the question of what is true, nor does it excuse us from interacting with their arguments. Labeling and dismissing those who question the mainstream view is often just a power play, usually employed by those without a rebutting argument. It’s a way of avoiding discussion, and having to defend their own point of view.

We always need to be open to the possibility that the person who challenges some traditional teaching/practice may be right, and the traditional teaching/practice may be wrong. If he is right, then he would not be divisive, but a unifier. Unifying what you may ask? Unifying the church with truth. What divides the church is not the person who challenges a particular teaching, but the false teaching itself. We often determine who the divisive party is by counting heads, but this is fallacious. Truth is determined by reasons, not head counts. As William Durant said, “Truth always originates in a minority of one, and every custom begins as a broken precedent.” Indeed, if truth was determined by head count, then those of us who hold to a Unitarian view of God must be mistaken, because our view is a minority view in Christendom. We ought to remember that before we crucify those among us who question an accepted view.

I think part of the reason we tend to dismiss dissenters is because there is this prevailing attitude among us that “we have the truth.” I agree that we have the truth in a basic sense, but this does not mean we have all the truth. We do not. There is always more to learn, and always areas of thought that we need to either change or refine. If we recognize our continued room for intellectual and spiritual growth, and the possibility that we might be mistaken in some of our beliefs, then we are only doing ourselves a disservice by shooting down those who question the mainstream. Let’s hear the dissenters out. They may have something to teach us.

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/20...ive/#more-1564

You are obviously rebellious and have "gone charismatic" so your thread should be deleted and you should be banned.

[KWSS1976]

I think that some stretch the bible verses and when someone questions them about it they get defensive. I myself have been told on a number of times to go pray and reread the scripture..Been there one that still come up with the same results...my thoughts did not changed when I prayed...TRUST NO ONE AND ASSUME NOTHING......AND ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS..

[KWSS1976]

I will use an example the (uncut hair standard)..take that scripture and break it down and study it you will not come up with uncut hair anywhere in there..used to when you ask a OP about it they would run to that scripture..now that people start asking questions about it..they turned it into God Convicted them they don't go and run behind there scripture anymore cause it does not talk about a women not being able to cut her hair

[coadie]

I offer 2 points about the charge of divisiveness.

The first point is the use of a logical fallacy. "I am correct and right and if you disagree with me, it has to because you are divisive because every one that knows, knows I am correct"
Darwinists keep creation out of schools because it is done against their science they claim and to be divisive.

The other point is a charge of divisiveness is set to make someone defensive. It adds an argument top the original argument.

"you are divisive"
"no I am Not"
"O yes you are divisive"

"prove you are not divisive!!!"

All the posts about the harvard/cambridge cop arrest row where around a charge of deliberate divisiveness.