• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

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

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


  • Total voters
    361
Status
Not open for further replies.

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:

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Ok two things. When I checked the site, I typed in the passage for the commandment not to murder/kill, the site said, at least for the first result, it is indeed kill.

Second, I can't copy and paste the definition of murder with this iPad, but you do know what murder means, correct? When did God become a lawmaker?

'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.
 

Roronoa Zoro

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

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:

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.

 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
If you believe in fairy tails.

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.
 
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.

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.

If you believe in fairy tails.
SICK BURN
YOU'RE SO COOL
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
mattj said:
I see no reason that the Bible shouldn't have a say in almost any debate about homosexuality
Okay, then give me a reason why it should.
 

Profesco

gone gently
If you took what I said in that previous conversation about "What the Bible says and doesn't say about the shape of the Earth" to mean that every belief must be strictly based on an explicit spelling out word for word in the Bible, I think you misunderstood me.

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.

I'm a firm believer that if you're going to say either "God doesn't like A, B, C" or "The Bible says X, Y, Z" you've gotta back it up with a simple, clear verse.

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.

I.e.:
2) Concerning Galileo's conviction. There is no verse in the Bible that says "The earth is the center of the universe, etc..." That council had no Biblical basis to convict him on whatsoever. I don't see how that could be an example of science directly conflicting some verse somewhere. It looks like it directly conflicted that council's pre-conceived notions of the universe though.


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

I'm 99.99999% sure that there is no verse in the Bible that explicitly says the words "Homosexuality is no longer punishable by death." I don't think that's a problem though.

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

... the Bible doesn't in fact say anywhere explicitly that [homosexuality is no longer punishable by death], and that the scriptures that those who purport such nonsense do not explicitly say so.

Borrowed from:
What I was trying to say is that the Bible doesn't in fact say anywhere explicitly that the earth is flat, square, cubic or any other nonsense, and that the scriptures that those who purport such nonsense do not explicitly say so.

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.

The reason I quoted that story with Jesus and the hooker (lol) is because it was a sexual sin with the same punishment. Its a pretty common belief that its message, that adultery no longer requires the death penalty applies to homosexuality, beastiality, and other sexual sins.

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:

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.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
mattj:

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.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
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.

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.



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..


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.


SICK BURN
YOU'RE SO COOL

Thanks bro!
 
Last edited:

Skydra

Well-Known Member
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.

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?

SICK BURN
YOU'RE SO COOL

You're really hurting your reputation here.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
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.

...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.

You're really hurting your reputation here.

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:

Skydra

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

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.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
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.

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.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
...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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top