• 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.
Mattj does not support stoning people - what is so hard to understand about this and why is it an issue?

Because if he is a bible literalist then at the very least he believes that the stoning of children was justified for a period of time.

Nobody who thinks in this way can hold any moral authority as far as I'm concerned.
 

Dragonicwari

Artistically angry
Only if the argument is on moral values, I feel like the bible has some good values in it, but if it's like, how was the world made? Then no, not really, but then again, what if god created the big bang to test our faith to him, I dunno, I'm agnostic :p
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Interesting question. In order for this to be "quote-unquote-child-abuse" can anyone prove there was a minor involved?

Interesting, so you're going to take the interpretation that he was age 13+ and go by the ancient Hebrew laws that say a 13 year old is adult. What was your position about age relativity concerning Aisha in the Muhammad debate? Do you think we should judge by the age standards of the time, or our own moral standards?

I don't think his issue is with Mattj reading the bible and having a religion, but that he believes him to be a blind follower (will take the bible at face value and follow every verse without question). I'm merely guessing though as I don't know mattj enough to make that judgement.

As a Christian myself, I don't believe that following God or the Bible should be a substitute for independant thought. And I have seen some posters here who seem to lack the capability to form their own stances on the grounds that "God told me it's wrong, therefore I hate".

I didn't think his issue was with Mattj reading the Bible and having a religion either.
His statment came out like 'Mattj takes a book where people are stoned as literal doctrine / he must support stoning children.' When mattj explained that he does not support stoning children, he reverted to just saying that God is inconsistant and shouldn't be trusted anyway, both attacking mattj, somewhat ignoring his details, and then moving the goalpost.
 

Antiyonder

Overlord
His statment came out like 'Mattj takes a book where people are stoned as literal doctrine / he must support stoning children.' When mattj explained that he does not support stoning children, he reverted to just saying that God is inconsistant and shouldn't be trusted anyway, both attacking mattj, somewhat ignoring his details, and then moving the goalpost.

While he might have come on too strong, doesn't being a bible literalist (which mattj refered to himself as) mean taking the verses at face value and following without thought? If yes, then it does seem like he's contradicting himself. If no, then dismiss my comment.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
While he might have come on too strong, doesn't being a bible literalist (which mattj refered to himself as) mean taking the verses at face value and following without thought? If yes, then it does seem like he's contradicting himself. If no, then dismiss my comment.

...comment dismissed then. Most flagrant example of mattj having an thought besides bible literalism: he supports gay marriage. Other than that, you see him writing all this, there is no way he is not using his own mental faculties and even independant thought to prop up the Bible.
 
Because if he is a bible literalist then at the very least he believes that the stoning of children was justified for a period of time.
Not only do I believe that the stoning of children was justified at one point, I believe that The Great Flood was justified, as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Children were undoubtedly involved in both of those instances as well. Do I take pleasure in the thought that children died? Obviously not. I also do not believe that Old Testament punishments are justified post Old Testament, as I explained in that post that you so conveniently decided not to read. But war can be justified. Execution can be justified. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they are objectively wrong.

Considering that we're talking about a Biblical event, to even entertain the thought that these events actually occurred and that some kind of moral error actually occurred would require that the the Bible is accurate. If the Bible is accurate, then the God of the Bible is just and all knowing and did the right thing. If the Bible isn't accurate what is the point of you even posting here, making this argument about a (in your mind) fictitious event? Do you have a lot of time to waste?

Then again, it's not about right or wrong, or getting to the truth for you. You seem to get your kicks out of keeping the troll going. Citing links that equate executing a 35yo with child abuse does make for a good laugh though, so I'd appreciate it if you kept posts like that coming please and thankyou.
Nobody who thinks in this way can hold any moral authority as far as I'm concerned.
Nice opinion. Glad to hear. If you'd like to know where you can put that opinion I'd be glad to inform you.
 
Last edited:

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
Hm I stumble upon this mess of a thread and read the last few posts. Seems like a suicide debate for both sides because those who support god wont move there standing if they actually believe those words.

As well the people who dislike the idea of a greater power have a grudge against those who feel safe in there beliefs because they have nothing to cling to but science which is 90% theory and 10% fact.(most things that we learn in school are not actually proven facts ironic they wont tell you that in school you got to learn it yourself. Look up the definition of a theory if you think I am wrong) But they wont let that change there beliefs because well humans have a bad habit of fighting against things that we believe are being forced upon us even if they are the truth or not.

This debate really wont end considering the facts that if God does exist a person wont be how you find him and if he doesn't exist then dying is your only method to prove that and well there are a lot of people with near death experiences making books these days about going to heaven or hell. Go look that up if you don't believe me as well.

Either way letting someone believe what they want is our right as free people not just our God given right but our earned right as hard working and strong people. this counts for all nations and all races. everyone earns the right to speak at least in my opinion.

Oh and I believe in God. Not because of the bible but because I met him in my worst moment in my lowest low and he helped me. You can throw me under the bus but I wont fall my belief stands firm because my King is the king of kings. ^^
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
God make Issac think that his father was going to murder him just so God could swoop him in the last second. Jesus let Lazarus die just so that Jesus can show off by revive him later. To paraphrase TFP:
The question I've asked is, "Is The God of Christianity's claim to be not evil truly trustworthy?" I think the answer tends toward a negative, to put it mildly.
You think this quote fails at logic? Blame TFP.

Whether you believe something to be true does not mean that there's a good reason why anyone else should believe it to be true. If you want to get someone to believe in something, then you'll have to prove that your source is in fact credible.
 

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
God make Issac think that his father was going to murder him just so God could swoop him in the last second. Jesus let Lazarus die just so that Jesus can show off by revive him later. To paraphrase TFP:
You think this quote fails at logic? Blame TFP.

Whether you believe something to be true does not mean that there's a good reason why anyone else should believe it to be true. If you want to get someone to believe in something, then you'll have to prove that your source is in fact credible.

I beg to differ. Its hard to make a person believe you but "people" Otherwise known as the masses is fairly easy to fool. Best example Barack Obama. All he did was claim he was going to change stuff and he became president and won the Noble Peace prize. All he changed thus far is our debt and it got bigger lol.
 

henryJSB

young based god
I beg to differ. Its hard to make a person believe you but "people" Otherwise known as the masses is fairly easy to fool. Best example Barack Obama. All he did was claim he was going to change stuff and he became president and won the Noble Peace prize. All he changed thus far is our debt and it got bigger lol.

so very wrong.

heres a few examples of what obamas done for america since he became president.

Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/obama-signs-bill-on-student-loans-health-care/

Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/obama-signs-bill-on-student-loans-health-care/

Tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/obama-signs-bill-on-student-loans-health-care/

Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010summary/html/ovw-bud-summary.htm

Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protect student borrowers

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-...lth-care-bill-and-your-student-loans/?print=1

Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

http://www.hrc.org/13699.htm

Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008835-503544.html

...could go on forever.
 

UltimatePokemonExpert

Experienced Trainer
First off, the guy who said Obama has made things worse, you just one awesome points. Secondly, it depends. If people want to base their answers off of what they believe in which can come from the Bible, than I see no problem with it. If it's a debate saying wether we should get rid of everything non-Christian or something like that, I don't think so. I am a Christian and wish everyone else was to, but as long as others aren't doing anything to harm anyone else, they should have freedom of religion. I also believe we should keep religion seperate from state to a point. Like I don't see the point of getting rid of "under God" in the Pledge of Alleigance when the USA is based on Christian beliefs, but I wouldn't want Sharia law or something. Anyways, that's my opinion. So, who wants pie? Pie's much better than debates.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
As well the people who dislike the idea of a greater power have a grudge against those who feel safe in there beliefs because they have nothing to cling to but science which is 90% theory and 10% fact.

10% fact sounds like an underestimation, but it's is better than the 0% fact that religion has. Faith isn't going to win you any debates, unless all parties involved share the same faith.
 

Double A

Well-Known Member
As well the people who dislike the idea of a greater power have a grudge against those who feel safe in there beliefs because they have nothing to cling to but science which is 90% theory and 10% fact.(most things that we learn in school are not actually proven facts ironic they wont tell you that in school you got to learn it yourself. Look up the definition of a theory if you think I am wrong)

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Basically, a fact is an observation, while a theory is an explanation.

I can't possibly see how believing in what has been proven and not believing in what hasn't been proven leads someone to "have a grudge" against someone else who doesn't. I hold no grudges against theists, I just think they're being irrational.

But they wont let that change there beliefs because well humans have a bad habit of fighting against things that we believe are being forced upon us even if they are the truth or not.

(continued from above)

The validity of "theories" depends entirely on how substantiated they are. If new evidence arises that supports an alternative theory, then the alternative theory will be considered and may even be accepted if the evidence is strong enough. As such, people who accept the scientific method are entirely able to "change their beliefs", while those that don't tend to be more close-minded.

In school, we are encouraged to question what we are taught. If a teacher can't respond to questions appropriately, then they are a crappy teacher.

This debate really wont end considering the facts that if God does exist a person wont be how you find him and if he doesn't exist then dying is your only method to prove that and well there are a lot of people with near death experiences making books these days about going to heaven or hell. Go look that up if you don't believe me as well.

People who think they've had near-death experiences mean next-to-nothing in terms of evidence, since they tend to reject other possibilities and assert things that can't be examined and/or proven.

Oh and I believe in God. Not because of the bible but because I met him in my worst moment in my lowest low and he helped me. You can throw me under the bus but I wont fall my belief stands firm because my King is the king of kings. ^^

In science, we call this "close-mindedness".
 
Last edited:

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
Lul All I have to say is he has made our debt go up from 13 trillion to 55 trillion and climbing. Plus he is about to get us into a war with china and and he made huge cuts to giving grants to students so they are FORCED to get student loans not to mention he bailed out the banks whom went and turned around and gave huge bonus's to there CEO's and still wont give loans to normal people not to mention the fact that the banks own so many homes that by our tax laws they pay 0 taxes in fact they get money from the government so why bail them out? If you want to have an argument about Obama take it to another thread this ones about god lol

To be fair you opened your mouth about a subject you clearly are ignorant on.

But yes, let the god talk continue.
 

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
10% fact sounds like an underestimation, but it's is better than the 0% fact that religion has. Faith isn't going to win you any debates, unless all parties involved share the same faith.

Again this is just an opinion I have won many debates with the bible vs people. Just because you think the person is wrong does not mean you won the argument it just means you don't want to believe the same as they do.
 

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Basically, a fact is an observation, while a theory is an explanation.

I can't possibly see how believing in what has been proven and not believing in what hasn't been proven leads someone to "have a grudge" against someone else who doesn't. I hold no grudges against theists, I just think they're being irrational.



(continued from above)

The validity of "theories" depends entirely on how substantiated they are. If new evidence arises that supports an alternative theory, then the alternative theory will be considered and may even be accepted if the evidence is strong enough. As such, people who accept the scientific method are entirely able to "change their beliefs", while those that don't tend to be more close-minded.

In school, we are encouraged to question what we are taught. If a teacher can't respond to questions appropriately, then they are a crappy teacher.



People who think they've had near-death experiences mean next-to-nothing in terms of evidence, since they tend to reject other possibilities and assert things that can't be examined and/or proven.



In science, we call this "close-mindedness".

Your right I should not have generalized all people who believe in science have a grudge but a lot of people do I am not sure why. Maybe its fear? And the people i was talking about were deemed dead by the doctors completely gone for like 20 minutes and then brought back by our amazing doctors these days.(More then likely a bit of Gods help as well but hey that's my belief not everyone elses.)
 

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
yes, people believe in rational thought because of 'fear'. and they believe in god because of level headed logic.

i think you may need to switch those two around.

Well rational is relative in this argument really. Considering the huge amount of anger this topic brings to peoples lives. Could always site the unexplainable like things moving on there own in Haunted houses. hm last time I checked science has no explanation for that. Lots of T.v. shows about it though.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Again this is just an opinion I have won many debates with the bible vs people. Just because you think the person is wrong does not mean you won the argument it just means you don't want to believe the same as they do.

Posting your "credentials" about winning some vague Bible debates isn't going to help you with this debate. It's so much as that I think the Bible is wrong, as it is that you can't prove that the Bible is right. Why should anyone listen to an ancient book that has some dubious claims when they are debating modern topics?
 

staroceandc

Well-Known Member
Posting your "credentials" about winning some vague Bible debates isn't going to help you with this debate. It's so much as that I think the Bible is wrong, as it is that you can't prove that the Bible is right. Why should anyone listen to an ancient book that has some dubious claims when they are debating modern topics?

Lul so am I suppose to have a bible debate score board or something? I don't see you having one that clocks your wins vs it and how is it dubious have you even tried to read the new testament? Now that you mention it though it would be funny to have a website dedicated to bible winning debates XD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top