1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!! Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debate?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by mattj, Aug 24, 2011.


Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debates when it has something to say

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Undecided

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mattj

    mattj .

    Sure is. Why not make a different thread to discuss it?
  2. Roronoa Zoro

    Roronoa Zoro Cracks begin to show

    Because I'd rather not. You can go ahead and do it, if you want.

    Anyways, to stay on topic...our mini-debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'll be back once I've checked the website out more, or if something intriguing comes up.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  3. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    'When did God become a lawmaker?' He's God, he made the laws of reality.

    The way it was explained to me, murder is when someone kills without meaning or the authority to do so. If it's a war, and those happen for self-defense, then you have authority to do so. Besides, dying doesn't have quite the same weight in the Bible as it does for someone who isn't religious - if they followed God they can have faith in an eternal afterlife.
  4. Roronoa Zoro

    Roronoa Zoro Cracks begin to show

    If he does exist, but, as said before, that's a whole different discussion.

    Edit: I know no one who says "oh, this is unlawful because God says so". I do know people that say "this is unlawful because in DC, that's the law"
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  5. SwiftSoul

    SwiftSoul Kinkmeister General

    > And on the same not I've never said the Bible should be used as a credible source in any debate that it does not have anything pertinent to say. I don't bring my Bible to a debate about Chinese History.

    The operative words were "major" and "directly"
    If it's a debate revolving around religion and religious texts themselves, it's of course fitting to cite examples from religious texts. Other things, like discussion about magick, can have examples up to an extent, as there are quite a few examples of magick cited in the bible. On the subject of abstinence, it does have some major things to say. But things like homosexuality, which is only referenced directly a small few times, I would say not. Most mention I have seen of it has been indirect and a huge plot point.

  6. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    If you believe in fairy tails.
  7. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Well, if you're talking about the Christian God, and asking about His attributes, then 'he created reality' is almost certain a valid statement. To respond, "But God's not real so it doesn't matter" is a valid opinion too, but it means that I was wasting my time in saying anything, and you've moved the goalposts. That's a different discussion.

    Fairies don't have 'tails', as far as I know.
  8. mattj

    mattj .

    I'm sure you've heard it already, but your color drives me nuts.

    The Bible says as much about homosexuality as it does heterosexual abstinence. I see no reason that the Bible shouldn't have a say in almost any debate about homosexuality, save the fact that some people reject it outright.

  9. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Okay, then give me a reason why it should.
  10. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    That is always a possibility. Let's trace the chain of reasoning that led to my misunderstanding below, see if we can spot the kinks.

    Well, I brought up the point that Galileo was persecuted for teaching something that contradicted what was taught from Biblical verse. You countered that the religious claims the Biblical scholars of the day persecuted him for defying were not actually contained anywhere in the Bible verses. You concluded that, because those claims were not explicitly quoted from the Bible, those claims were thus merely the authorities' pre-conceived notions, and had no Biblical basis whatsoever.


    Then, recently, I applied the argument you made above to the topic of homosexuality. Your response to your own argument:

    Now, you don't think it's a problem to claim that "homosexuality is no longer punishable by death," even though:

    Borrowed from:
    So we have two cases.

    1) Claim attributed to the Bible: The solar system is not geocentric and the Earth is flat.
    Actually in the Bible: Something about "four corners of the Earth" etc. (I don't recall the relevant verses being posted, besides that phrase.) In other words, nothing about "Earth-flat" or "Earth-center of solar system."
    Your response: There is no Bible verse that makes that specific claim, so you can't make that claim and attribute it to the Bible.

    2) Claim attributed to the Bible: Homosexuality is no longer punishable by death.
    Actually in the Bible: "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense" and (speaking about an adulterer) "Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." In other words, nothing about "homosexuality-not punishable by death" or "forget what we originally said about killing homosexuals."
    Your response: Even though there is no Bible verse that makes that specific claim, you can indeed make that claim and attribute it to the Bible.

    Well, here we need to see if the rule works again. Is there a specific verse in the Bible that says "Jesus's message - that adultery no longer requires the death penalty [which itself is not technically true of Biblical verse given the passages you provided, remember] - also applies to homosexuality, beastiality, and other sexual sins," or is this 'common belief' not supported by an actual quote from scripture, the way geocentricity and flat Earthism weren't?

    This discrepancy needs an explanation. Either only literal readings of verse can provide legitimate Biblical claims, or not only literal readings of verse can provide legitimate Biblical claims. It cannot be both ways.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  11. SwiftSoul

    SwiftSoul Kinkmeister General

    > The Bible says as much about homosexuality as it does heterosexual abstinence.

    > Implying I was only referring to sexual abstinence.

    There are maybe two or three explicit mentions of homosexuality being negative (Sodom and Gomorrah do not count; they were hedonists all around and you cannot blame the negative perception or the punishment administered to them on homosexuality. It's just as easily, in fact likely much more eaasily, punishing rape, and trying to come between a man and his protection over his own house), and even then, it depends on translation. It's widely accepted that "do not suffer a witch to live" was in the KJV only because of the King's very harsh look upon sorcerers and practitioners of magick, when the verse was actually much milder and much less adamant. Also would seem contradictory to other parts of the bible, where Jesus would perform magickal feats (one might only refer to them as miracles, although they are one and the same), such as curing illnesses, walking on water, and calming the seas. Not to mention the pseudo-necromancy with Lazarus, and then there's that one little thing. Jesus was often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. [name] of [place] was a very common way of referring to a warlock or wizard (there are other things that may hint to him being a warlock, but that's because warlock doesn't actually mean what you'd think it does) at the time period, and even after.

    > I'm sure you've heard it already, but your color drives me nuts.

    Works fine on the Dark Type skin. easy on the eyes. Also, that's enough reason for me to keep it that was awhile.
  12. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!


    The Bible claims many things.

    1. What evidence exists to suggest it is right about all of them?

    2. If there are parts of the Bible which are wrong, how can we decide rationally which parts of the Bible are still correct?

    I expect you to answer both questions separately before you can claim to have won this debate.
  13. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    Boo, you got me on the tails thing. That's my blunder.

    Now both you and mattj had posted very similar responses in regards to law, god, the universe and how they interrelate. You both also posted them in such a tone as to suggest they are cold hard facts written in stone. Not surprised that mattj did this but you on the other hand have been very level headed and have conducted yourself in these types of debates in a very open and respectable manner despite your own beliefs.

    We must remember the whole existence of god is solely opinionated. Arguing the case of why one entity gets to make all the rules because he created everything seems a little silly to me, but going back and reading over the initial comments I guess that doesn't matter and the tone may have been quite adequate actually, so I apologize to you for the unfounded remark.

    Maybe in debates the directly affect the church. Debates such as whether or not the government should be allowed to make churches allow gay marriages,then yea sure. But others that are beyond the scope of the church I see no reason to take into consideration what the bible says. The bible having only faith to back up it's credibility has no place outside theological debates.

    Thanks bro!
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  14. Skydra

    Skydra Well-Known Member

    And why do we reject it? Because we see no reason to just take a whole book of questionable "facts" as a reliable source. As GhostAnime said, why? What reasons do you have?

    You're really hurting your reputation here.
  15. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    ...I forgive you? I think you read too much into my 'tone'. Of course it matters that the existance of God is open to opinion, but that can't really neutralize any claim someone makes about God, can it? If we were arguing about what happened in an episode of Pokemon and people were saying 'this happened' and then 'no this happened' and somebody came in and said, "Pokemon isn't real, none of it matters," how do you think the people in the argument would react? I was explaining to RZ why the biblical God is allowed to differentiate between killing and murder. It seems sort of ridiculous to me, because in the Bible, God creates humanity and the laws they abide by, and that's sort of acknowledged culturally beyond the Bible as something this God, fictional or real, does within the narrative. There was a certain context to his question and my answer, and I don't think you acknowledged that context when you answered "If you believe in fairy tails." And by referring to people who are religious as believing in fairy tales, it seemed like you were taking a hit at me, and that's why I corrected your spelling.

    It certainly doesn't hurt the amount of people willing to debate him, does it? He was even worse at the beginning of the debate, yet the traffic to this thread is still strong.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  16. Hejiru

    Hejiru Rev up those fryers

    Not really. Whether you believe in it or not, referring to someone's faith as "fairy tales" is very offensive.
  17. Skydra

    Skydra Well-Known Member

    I was referring to the gigantic font and pointless phrase that he used. I don't mind him being offended at the Bible being called "fairy tales," I just mind his response.
  18. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    I think that is what is called 'retaliating'.

    It's his own thread he's making ugly in order to retaliate against who he calls 'trolls', which, if they are trolls, you're not supposed to feed them, so yeah his conduct is questionable.
  19. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    Yep I took the comment out of context and I read too much into it response but because of the former I still feel an apology was necessary; at least toward you. I did not mean to come across as taking a shot at you. I actually felt it would be wiser to quote you rather than mattj for that very reason.

    As is the lack of a response to Profesco's latest post. I'm really curious if we can have our cake and eat it too.
  20. mattj

    mattj .

    I apologize. Unlike you I have a life. I'll respond after Sunday.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page