Example of debate in Bible

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Just thinking about Plato's 'The Republic'.

It is an example of a few people having an intelligent debate. One thing that occurred to me is that back then this was something very few people do and nothing has really changed. Very few people would engage in robust intellectual debate today.

I admit my biblical ignorance to you all so I was wondering could you tell is there anywhere in the Bible where there is an example of robust debate?

Many thanks.

Slav

Try the book of Job. There are four guys debating for the most part of it. God joins in at the end.

bonniebede

I know this is not a debate but it always amuses me. Abraham is bargaining to buy a plot of land - I love the to and fro of let me pay for it, no no, have it! no really, let me pay for it, no go on just have it, let me give you this price, oh, okay, done deal.






Gen.23

B]1[/B Sarah lived a hundred and twenty-seven years; these were the years of the life of Sarah.
B]2[/B And Sarah died at Kir'iath-ar'ba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her.
B]3[/B And Abraham rose up from before his dead, and said to the Hittites,
B]4[/B "I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me property among you for a burying place, that I may bury my dead out of my sight."
B]5[/B The Hittites answered Abraham,
B]6[/B "Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our sepulchres; none of us will withhold from you his sepulchre, or hinder you from burying your dead."
B]7[/B Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land.
B]8[/B And he said to them, "If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar,
B]9[/B that he may give me the cave of Mach-pe'lah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as a possession for a burying place."
B]10[/B Now Ephron was sitting among the Hittites; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, of all who went in at the gate of his city,
B]11[/B "No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it; in the presence of the sons of my people I give it to you; bury your dead."
B]12[/B Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land.
B]13[/B And he said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, "But if you will, hear me; I will give the price of the field; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there."
B]14[/B Ephron answered Abraham,
B]15[/B "My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead."
B]16[/B Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver which he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants.
B]17[/B So the field of Ephron in Mach-pe'lah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave which was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over
B]18[/B to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.
B]19[/B After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Mach-pe'lah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.
B]20[/B The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as a possession for a burying place by the Hittites.

bonniebede

on a more serious note, several of the new testament letters are well thought out arguments, you just have to be able to 'hear' the arguments of the position they are addressing, which is alluded to , or sometimes sketched. For example Romans and Hebrews.

Jesus did a fair bit of smart arguing , think render unto caesar on so on, but it is not the rhetorical style of Plato, much more hebraic and colloquial.

Fanny Cradock

Acts 17 outlines Paul's activities at the Areopagus (that's Mars Hill to you and me). Though they are probably described more accurately as sermons and not debates, I can imagine that the Areopagus may have been something like Speakers Corner in London. A place were would speak and they audience would listen, question, cheer or sneer.

philologos

Read the book of Job.

There's a difference between the Bible and Plato's Republic. One claims to be divine revelation, the other claims to be a man made philosophical discourse.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Acts 17 outlines Paul's activities at the Areopagus (that's Mars Hill to you and me). Though they are probably described more accurately as sermons and not debates, I can imagine that the Areopagus may have been something like Speakers Corner in London. A place were would speak and they audience would listen, question, cheer or sneer.

What I am looking for example of critical thinking where there is discourse and something like the socratic method.

For example, in the opening pages of 'The Republic', there is a discourse on honesty where they question various aspects of it in a way that anyone would read and would just realise these guys are pretty smart thinkers.

The point of the socratic method is that it is a mechanism of critical thinking to ascertain truth that is till resepected today.

Similar, to Socrates, Aristotle wrotes lots on logic - all this stuff is about getting to the truth of the matter thru logic as the methods of logic are more reliable.

I'm wondering do we see any of these in the Bible.

georgieporgy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
Just thinking about Plato's 'The Republic'.

It is an example of a few people having an intelligent debate. One thing that occurred to me is that back then this was something very few people do and nothing has really changed. Very few people would engage in robust intellectual debate today.

I admit my biblical ignorance to you all so I was wondering could you tell is there anywhere in the Bible where there is an example of robust debate?

Many thanks.

At least you're an honest man ,Tim. Why don't you take a weekend off and read the entire New Testament. Thank me later.:)

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What I am looking for example of critical thinking where there is discourse and something like the socratic method.

For example, in the opening pages of 'The Republic', there is a discourse on honesty where they question various aspects of it in a way that anyone would read and would just realise these guys are pretty smart thinkers.

The point of the socratic method is that it is a mechanism of critical thinking to ascertain truth that is till resepected today.

Similar, to Socrates, Aristotle wrotes lots on logic - all this stuff is about getting to the truth of the matter thru logic as the methods of logic are more reliable.

I'm wondering do we see any of these in the Bible.

Logic has it's biases and limitations ... and the more things change ... the more they stay the same!!!
... the following could be a summary of some of the debates ... that take place on the Boards.ie and similar forums today.

Acts 17:16-34
While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship —and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

bonniebede

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What I am looking for example of critical thinking where there is discourse and something like the socratic method.

For example, in the opening pages of 'The Republic', there is a discourse on honesty where they question various aspects of it in a way that anyone would read and would just realise these guys are pretty smart thinkers.

The point of the socratic method is that it is a mechanism of critical thinking to ascertain truth that is till resepected today.

Similar, to Socrates, Aristotle wrotes lots on logic - all this stuff is about getting to the truth of the matter thru logic as the methods of logic are more reliable.

I'm wondering do we see any of these in the Bible.

I think for what you have in mind, other than some of what has been posted you are mostly lookng in the wrong place, the bible is not a philosophy text. Although among the 73 books of the bible there is a lot of differences in genre, none of them could be compared directly to the Republic.

You might try reading St THomas Aquinas - he was a fan of Aristotle and the bible, and is closer to being a philosphical text in the mode you are thinking about. The entire summa theologiae is online, i reccommend you start with articles 90-94 on law and the common good which takes up some of the themes in the part of The republic you have been mentioning.

One of the things you get less of in the bible is abstract thinking, a lot of it is historical recording.

Tim Robbins

georgieporgy wrote: »

At least you're an honest man ,Tim. Why don't you take a weekend off and read the entire New Testament. Thank me later.:)

I have read the New Testament already. Why don't you read the Effective Java by Josh Bloch? It's a pretty good 300 pages of clinical logic.

Tim Robbins

bonniebede wrote: »

I think for what you have in mind, other than some of what has been posted you are mostly lookng in the wrong place, the bible is not a philosophy text. Although among the 73 books of the bible there is a lot of differences in genre, none of them could be compared directly to the Republic.

You might try reading St THomas Aquinas - he was a fan of Aristotle and the bible, and is closer to being a philosphical text in the mode you are thinking about. The entire summa theologiae is online, i reccommend you start with articles 90-94 on law and the common good which takes up some of the themes in the part of The republic you have been mentioning.

I read some bits of Aquinus already.

One of the things you get less of in the bible is abstract thinking, a lot of it is historical recording.

Eh... I wouldn't agree with that.

I think the bible is a collection of stories that certain people like to tell each other from about 2,000 years ago.

These stories changed slightly just like chinese whispers over the years but were eventually written down and made into a canonical form by a big organised Church (PDN and some other Protestants will go mad with that statement).

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Eh... I wouldn't agree with that.

I think the bible is a collection of stories that certain people like to tell each other from about 2,000 years ago.

These stories changed slightly just like chinese whispers over the years but were eventually written down and made into a canonical form by a big organised Church (PDN and some other Protestants will go mad with that statement).

There's evidence to the contrary. We don't see any significant alteration to the New Testament since its first writing in the first century. See the links in my signature "Why trust the Bible?" if you want any more reason as to why I find the Chinese whispers / it was all fiction hypothesis unconvincing.

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have read the New Testament already. Why don't you read the Effective Java by Josh Bloch? It's a pretty good 300 pages of clinical logic.

Logic has it's place ... but it too proceeds from certain presumptions and operates within particular philosophical frameworks that can make it subject to error.
The Bible is not a book about logic, no more than it is a book about science ... but both logic and science can be applied to understanding and proving aspects of God's Word in the Bible.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have read the New Testament already. Why don't you read the Effective Java by Josh Bloch? It's a pretty good 300 pages of clinical logic.

Hello Tim, I'm a software developer and get through a lot of that kind of stuff on a daily basis. This isn't the preserve of atheism, nor is it contradictory to Christianity, despite your claims to the contrary.

Carrying on - I'm not going to find much of use in the Effective Java concerning my identity, my purpose, the place that I have in the world, how I should live in creation, how I should work, how I should love others, what is the place of suffering, sin, wrongdoing, the fall, and so on. The Bible obviously touches on different concepts. As good as programming books are, they have a limited remit. I love programming, but I love the God who created the logical faculties in us to be able to fathom such things.

You know as well as I do that Effective Java, as good as it could be, won't tell me anything about the fundamental nature of reality.

bonniebede

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read some bits of Aquinus already.


Eh... I wouldn't agree with that.

I think the bible is a collection of stories that certain people like to tell each other from about 2,000 years ago.

These stories changed slightly just like chinese whispers over the years but were eventually written down and made into a canonical form by a big organised Church (PDN and some other Protestants will go mad with that statement).

well a fair bit is considerably older than 2000 years ago. However the date of writing down events is generally judged to be more reliable the closer to the events the recording happened, and the new testament was written within the lifetime of primary eyewitnesses, so not a lot of time for a long process of distortion. THere are other things you could say, like maybe its all fraud, but as far as the gospels go, within the normal criteria for historical records, they measure up very well. Better say, than the evidence we accept for Julius Caesar in the the Gallic wars.

PDN

Since this is getting into Atheist/Christian Debate territory, and these old chestnuts about the Bible have been dealt with before there, then there seems little point in doing a rerun here.

In answer to the OP, no, the Bible is a different kind of literature to Socratic debate.