frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Evolution?

245



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/8/morality-is-objective-and-we-can-prove-it/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-elerick/are-morals-subjective-or_b_504262.html

    You see I think you have confused choice with morality.  The Nazis chose to murder, but were they right?  No, everyone you ask agrees with that.  Did they THINK they were right?  Yes.  That word, think.  Big word when it comes to free will.  You have a choice to follow objective morals or not.  It does not mean you are right though.  You have blurred that line and mixed the two.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    Who decided what objective morals are. To the nazis, you THINK murder of other races is wrong. They think that it is moral and willl even say it is objectively moral. You are too self-centered. Actually if you ask arabs, russians, indians, religious extremists and african tribes that practice cannibalism, murder is ok. You think it is not. They think it is. To you, they THINK they are right and you think they are wrong and only you are right. Vice versa for them.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit So are you telling me the Nazis were right?  Are you telling me that what they did was fine?  Tell me honestly.  
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    And are you saying anyone who has ever murdered is right?  That they are not at fault?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    can you stop with the strawmen fallacies alrrady. I said the nazis thought they write and I disagreee with them. To them, you THINK you are right but you are wrong and they are right, at least thats what they think. You think something elese. I think something else. To them, we both THINK we are right but we are wrong. To us, the nazis THINK they were right but they are wrong. 
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit But there is no right and wrong if objective morality does not exist.  You are just stating they are justified since they are right.  You stated they are wrong there, so aren't you proving objective morality by stating that?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @SuperSith89 ffs man, i am telling you right and wrong do exist but what is right or wrong differs from pwrson to person and from culture to culture therefore objective morals do not exist. What i think about morality is subjeective and changes all the time. When i was a muslim, i used to think gays and non believers should be killed and women should have no rights. That changed now and the exact opposite of everything which proves morality changes and is not objective and so therefore is subjective. Right and wrong are just the differing perceptions of morality according to different cultures and individuals. There are no universal moral values because morality and whats right or wrong changes from person to person.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I agree with @SuperSith89 Most people know it is wrong to kill someone, steal, etc. Even the first time every Nazi soldier killed, he knew it was wrong.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit But do you admit the nazis were justified at all?  Do you, because you seem yo be trying to.  
  • melanielustmelanielust 285 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    I don't think he's trying to justify the Nazis, he's just saying that from their perspective, they were doing the right thing.
    Which of course is reprehensible.
    But they were so corrupted that their version of morals were completely different than what is accepted.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    I am saying from their prespective, their right and wrong included killing people is okay. 200 years ago, slavery was ok and was the norm. Slave owners back then included in their right and wrong (morality) that slavey is the right thing to do. Arabs in their right and wrong is ok to kill homosexuals. All of these moral values are different in the west now since murder and slavery and ethnic cleanising and homophobia are all rejected since they do not align with western views and values. I align with western views and values and rejext thw nazis, arab morality and all the ethings above just like the west. My point is morality is subjective and not objective and differs from culture to culture and from person to person which means morality evolved from the agreement of the individuals of a culture on a set number of rules and those rules differ from culture to culture (subjective). 

    If i see anymore ad hominem or strawmen fallacies like "so you support the nazis" then i am just going to leave this debate. 
    melanielust
  • melanielustmelanielust 285 Pts   -  
    I agree @m_abusteit . Morals are not objective, and in some people's minds the things that you and I find horrendous are not actually horrendous. We can lament other people's morals all we want and fight against them, but we can't change that other people simply don't understand our own morals. That mindset doesn't mean you sympathize with lesser morals, @SuperSith89 .
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit@melanielust Maybe, but I think you both don't realize the terrible consequences of this thought process.  You are saying that each person has his own morality, so each person has their own idea of what is right.  Imagine if criminals today got onto this thought process.  I can see them using that as an excuse to get out of punishment and believe me, it would work.  Why would it work?  Because it is just how their morality is and we just cannot change that.  They have a human right to do what they wish since it is what they think is right.  Just because people differ in their idea of right does not mean they differ in morality.  Morality exists anywhere, but some people choose not to listen to it.  Ever get that twinge of guilt when lying?  Do you think that just might be God telling you to go the other way through morality?  I think no matter who you are this is true.  Right and wrong are the same no matter where you go.  Murder is never right, even if you THINK it is, and I don't care if people do it or not and are fine, they will feel guilt eventually.  No one can escape that.  

    So I keep bugging you on the nazi thing because you are saying they are partially justified because there is no absolute right or wrong.  That would take the blame off of them, ISIS, cannibals, and other monsters throughout history.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    I agree with @SuperSith89. Most of us have some sense of what is right or wrong. I think your environment can sometimes make you forget or disregard that basic aspect of ourselves. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    You are presupposing westerrn morals and they are presupposing nazi morals. Everyone has their own morals. Thats the problem. When you are saying the nazis are not justified, you are presuming western morals because that is what you are used to. When you are saying murder is wrong, this is based on your western morals. An arab or indian or rusian or african  would say murder is okay under some circumstances. You might be yelling right now that i am nazi and that murder is obviously wrong but that just proves my point tthat you are presupposing western morals. An arab would have agreed with my statment because he is aligned with arab morals.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit You missed my entire point.  My gosh.  Here is a quote from this website, https://carm.org/what-is-wrong-with-subjective-morality, that I think justifies my point even more.  

    "Is an action such as rape actually morally wrong by nature? When we ask the question, particularly of someone who is not a Christian, we get a lot of different answers. Some say that it is wrong because it hurts people.  But, then why is hurting someone wrong?  After all, some people like to be hurt.  In addition, if morals are subjective, then the rapist can say that raping someone is right, even though the one getting raped will say it is wrong.  Which is the right position?  How does one subjective opinion stand up against another and actual moral truth emerge? "

    Another good point: "Moral values would have to be assigned by people. But then, which people? Also, would morality be determined by popular vote? Or, do individuals claim moral values for themselves and then seek to blend in to the moral values of everyone else? But the problem is that people contradict each other and all sorts of things. It would be a problem to determine what is actually is right and wrong when morals are subjective and people disagree all the time.  Furthermore, if people were to appeal to something "just being wrong", then they are not appealing to the subjective preferences but to a standard outside of themselves. This would be inconsistent with the idea of subjective morality and would be borrowing from the Christian worldview which teaches there are absolute morals to which all people are subject."

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.858184-If-morality-is-subjective-what-makes-your-morality-better-than-Hitlers

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-truth.htm

    It's a simple philosophical answer!  Subjective morality will destroy this world if people really start to go with it.  "Everyone has their own morals. Thats the problem."  You made my point.  Why believe in a flawed theory?  Objective morality gives you an all powerful creator ,that knows so much more than the creation, making the rules, and the rules all make sense!  The ten commandments: No other gods before me.  Is this so bad?  When you worship other gods, you get ISIS and cannibals.  Make no idols.  Not bad either.  Money is a good example.  What happens when someone makes money their idol?  You get divorce, suicide, and a pretty sad life.  Not take the Lord's name in vain.  Not so hard.  Who likes swearing anyways?  Pretty unprofessional.  Remember the Sabbath.  Who doesn't want one entire day off each week.  Imagine if every business in the world followed this.  Honor your father and mother.  Who doesn't?  This is a great rule.  No murdering.  Pretty obvious.  Killing should never be justified.  You take a life full of potential, even when that person wasn't the greatest.  Do not commit adultery.  That and number 6 are laws today still.  Lots of problems that come through adultery.  You shall not steal.  Good one there.  Shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  Do not covet.  Both good ones too.  Are they easy to follow?  Not all the time, but they are fitting with how the world works.  How it should work.  What if everyone followed these?  No more ISIS, terrorism, basically no prisons, no 9/11, no holocaust.  That is a world I would love.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    "Subjective morality will destroy the world if people really start to go with it"

    , this is your entire thesis that you keep regurgitating. I already told and showed you multiple times how morality is subjective in different cultures and religions like how you can beat your wife and kill homosexuals, non-believers in arabia and be considered moral and be glorified while doing this in the west will get you a life sentence. 

    I do agree with you that objective morality might make the world a better place but it is hard to convince people with a different morality than you like isis or the nazis that you are right and they wrong. However, for the billionth time morality is not objective, it is subjective and whats right and wrong differs from person to person and from culture to culture so evolution does not have to answer the morality question since morality is subjective and was just the consensus of a group of people in the same place (culture) about what they thought was ok and what they thought was not ok or would harm them.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Believe in that then.  Believe in a world where the nazis weren't wrong.  Have fun living in a world where a child rapist could get out of jail because that is his morality.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @SuperSith89

    are you kidding or serious? To the nazis and the child rapist, what they are doing is right, to us it is wrong. It is different for everyone. In your  worldview you should not kill others. In Islamic, nazi, Mafia, gang, latin america, africa, it is literally ok and encouraged to kill others such as homosexuals. It is different for everyone, that is the definition of subjective. The founder of islam, muhammad was married to a six year old, to him and all other muslims that is ok and moral, to us westerns that is not fine. It is different for every culture. You are painting a very unflattering picture of your comprehension and cognitive skills.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  I'm 100% serious.  A world without objective morality cannot exist.  Who makes the rules in a subjectively moral world?  How are right and wrong decided anyways?  Why do we have prison if those people have their own version of right?
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    Different cultures make different rules and laws in a subjectively moral world which is what happens. Different cultures have different laws like anti-homosexulaity in arabia and anti-hompophobia in the west. Its all up to the individual, society and culture.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    "In order to refute this argument, one needs to recognize the difference between beliefs and truths.  What people believe is not what is important.  People have different beliefs about things all the time, but what matters is which beliefs are true.  In the first argument an example was given about two people who believed different things about there being life on Mars.  Both people cannot be right.  Either there is life on Mars or there is not.  Those are two different beliefs, but only one is true.  The same argument applies to cultural relativism.  While different cultures believe different things, the fact that they have these beliefs does not result in truth.  Either one is and the other is not, or they both are not true."  From that website that you ignored.   
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @SuperSith89

    Objective morality is highly improbable because even the Church couldn't uphold all Bible morals. The Dark Ages happened and that is definite proof that the Bible is never the basis of objective morality. Morality is something we pick up from the influence of others or ancestors in modern cases, Values Teachers. Values Teachers shove their idea of morality into a child. How can a priest become a child molester? He had theology, seminars, outreach and even exposure to different churches of their region yet an ordinary atheist would prevail to be moral or specifically not be a child molester. Why would the very young child allow the priest to do such to him? The child molesting priest diverts the child to his perverse encouragement using biblical texts. Why is it that then? Wouldn't that mean logic plays a HUGE part in morality? That the human mind plays a bigger role in morally upright values than God dwelling inside the human heart?

    Did anyone become morally better when Spain had colonies and the FRIARS 'took good care' of the people? The only people treated right where the seminarians and nuns, heck our ancestors at that time were insulted with 'Indio'. Well I guess insulting isn't part of the 10 commandments which religious people just shallowly followed before. Anything subjectively deemed wrong by any man that is not part of the 10 commandments is right. If I took God's idea of objective morality then killing is necessary when 0 people in a region don't follow 'the code of objective morality'. That when someone is being raped, sometimes it's best not to stick your nose into their business affair. That it's ok to take foreskins from the philistines despite their own beliefs. 

    The idea of morality developed through multicultural beliefs and the age of reasoning thanks to modern philosophers. What did the christians do when Epicurus spread his idea of living with his friends in communes? They took it over and turned them to monasteries. The Greeks could've further developed and further spread the idea of living with friends in one house and letting them do their work as they please and have meditation periods. Those were amoral things that could've had great impact but the christians had their own subjective morality. Amoral or morally neutral wasn't even a term recognised by christians before.

    The pope at the time of the middle ages wanted to take back Spain and only make it for all christians, that seems politically selfish and unnecessary based on territorial laws but they did. They deemed it moral to tear down mosques, kill muslim parents and force muslim children uphold their beliefs and Spain finally became all holy again with the "correct religion" in power and control.

    This all proof that christians and catholics still have subjective morality. Let their children play violent games or Bible related games? Introduce them to other religions or never speak of them? Allow them to be independent or always be at their side securing their life? God allowed us to be independent. Is that the objective morality we should show to babies? It's a choice between two means with known consequences and free will supports subjective morality. It does not mean a text significantly summarised every moral thing possible, it is the only thing that dictates what is moral.

    So if you're going to throw that murder is then could be possibly justified then yes because there is a definition to murder and it is unlawfully killing someone. Now if someone were about to kill you and you accidentally killed him, in my country, the law protects that. Therefore it is not recognised as murder for us because that killing to protect one's life or more importantly the police force and military's lives is lawful, clearly recognised by the law.

    If the military was afraid to kill because they would go to hell, then why have a military? Does the military have to worry about murder? We need to defend ourselves and it's subjectively moral that we compete with the defences and security of other countries to fight terrorism.

    Every definition of morality or moral demands an established code properly defined or in the very least it be relating to highly recognised principles.

    I will use the New International Version but this is the site I've been digging
    https://www.gotquestions.org/war-Bible.html

    This commentary proves that all these aren't metaphorical
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/21.html

    Highlights
    Exodus 21:
    12
    Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
    (Isn't this the death penalty?)
    13
    However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.
    (What is God doing???)
    14
    But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
    (Clearly Understood God)

    The whole chapter supports death penalty but what about states or regions that don't? Do they have a say against the Bible as a religious person? Did political candidates ever know that death penalty is bible approved? 
    People shouldn't just stop at the ten commandments and tell themselves alright those are the only laws in the Bible ever mentioned. They should read more to learn more of the laws that God set up.

    If the human rights department would even defend it's wrong to take another person's life because they have taken another/others based on the ten commandments, the value of life in Genesis well I have Exodus 21.
    Understanding God here, he knew that 'thou shalt not kill' isn't enough, that crimes concerning taking lives would still occur and so set up such penalties that doesn't really support love and compassion, repentance and forgiveness.

    m_abusteit
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    The evidence for evolution is literally so rife and paints a more rational picture of our origin than god. Fossils like tiktalik and archaeopteryx and taung child fossil and lucy and neanderthal fossil, pseudogenes like w3nta which gives us tails, atavisms like the lizard snake or the ape human , homologies we have similar morphologies to apes and bats, humans, cats and whales all have the same bone structure but different function in the hand except longer and thicker or smaller and narrower bones but the same structure or layout proving we are all connected by a common ancestors , comparative embroyology proves we all have a common ancestor, comparative DNA like being 98% similar with apes and vestigial features like the human coccyx, wisdom teeth and the harmful appendix. This is a brief list and does not include other lines of evidence like biogeography. 

    If you deny evolution, why do you deby it despite all the evidence?

    If you accept evolution, how do you fit the fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes over millions of years with the story that the first guy was created from mud in heaven in one day and that the first woman was created from his rib on the same day before apes and other animals were created.


    Here is two pictures, everyone agrees that one was Intelligently Designed and created, and Evolutionists claim the other just evolved from amoeba on a wet rock.
    Can you tell which one took over a hundred years of Intelligent design, engineering, machining and programming, and which one "just happened"?

    http://www.beyonddesignchicago.com/asimo-robot-a-great-advancement-in-technological-intelligence/

    https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/systems-engineer-day/

    If you picked the System Engineer to have evolved through care-less Mother Natures random selection, and after that speciation, then can you answer me a simple questions regarding this next video?




    Time 0:21

    What was that "common ancestor" that Pastor Dawkins is pointing at that gave birth to a Chimp, a Bonobo, and a white human suburban housewife?

    A. Gorilla
    B. Orangutan

    Please none of that





    "it took millions and billions of Carl Sagan years for them to evolve", .. I just want to know what was that creature in that "point/moment" in time Dawkins is pointing at?
    Thank you.

  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89 you seem to have missed that subjective morals is what got the Christians the dominant religion today through numerous conquests and territorial claiming maybe a little bit of killing too. The world would be destroyed with only subjective morality?

    Have you so much faith in God you have no faith in man? The best thing to lay out right here in front of you is God didn't directly teach you morals. Tell me an experience you learned english terms concerning values directly in your visions, dreams or prayers. You had to take the subjective morals of a book, a Holy book, internet reading, your friends, your teachers and your parents. There are people with good morals and we never acknowledge nor appreciate them simply because they aren't lost sheep? At least they're the sheep that bring good influence to others and continue to flow helpful subjective morals.

    I appreciate my teachers so much for teaching me morals logically and molding my abilities to judge on my own but who do others appreciate? God? Call me but I didn't just read the Bible to understand sharing is caring but I needed examples and demonstrations from other people who have learned the same things I am learning. I needed to see everyone's subjective view of a logical flow in such actions. And there I found it, it's not moral to give money to people who already have 10 times as much as me as I look at their wallet. But when their wallet is nearly empty and they are hurting that is the right time. People have desires to gain objects without spending or trading too much of theirs so they spend the goodness of people on themselves. Give money to the poor? For them to eat? No I give food to avoid that they buy other things. Is it bad to doubt people even when they're already very unfortunate or is it good to directly tackle their needs?

    What about spoiled people always talking back to their parents? Are they morally wrong or they are always just expressing their feelings and desires in a violent manner? And the parents? Are they tackling it correctly or tackling them? It's a long chain of subjective morality here. If a child goes against the 4th commandment to save his dear life from his mother and father I say let the child. Child abuse isn't even defined in the ten commandments What about emotional abuse? Don't subjectively moral people have a say?

    In any given philosophical illustration anyone is bound to have shared morals with another. The problem here is you just accept the 10 commandments are enough. But what's truly behind the text? It's education. The 10 commandments are nothing without a medium to make anyone understand it. How would a two-year old understand adultery without someone to have to educate them as they grow?

     If one man shares the morals he views as good then others will or will judge.
     
    1 Samuel 15:3 NIV
    Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

    Deuteronomy 29:17-18
    But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God

    God kind of admits morality is passed on and influenced and so destroys them without any diplomatic action or even educate them or brainwash them with good morals.

    The ten commandments all make sense but what the creator did no. I would leave the children out of this especially that they didn't have atomic bombs yet there was a way to save the young ones. Saul didn't follow this and he left a few of his creation alive and God was annoyed and rejected him as king because of. Are we really supposed to have total obedience and submission??? God was mad cause Saul didn't help him send them all to heaven??
    Evidence
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @Imbster  Let me explain this.  Objective morality means that there is one right and one wrong, but that does not mean everyone follows that set of rules.  Just because the Catholics during the crusades did terrible things, that doesn't mean they defy objective morality.  They chose not to listen to what was right and went with their beliefs instead.  Your argument doesn't disprove objective morality, but rather proves it.  It proves there is free will and choice for whether or not you fill follow the absolute truth.  That priest is still wrong no matter what.

    I would like to direct you here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/776/Does-Scripture-Allow-for-Self-Defense.htm for your next point that carried out for a while there.  I don't know why you gave me the first link as that justifies that chapter and verses shared.  

    I would also like to mention how that verse was written by Moses under the divine inspiration of God.  Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament at about 1445 B.C.  https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_678.cfm.  That is almost 4,000 years ago.  That world was deeper in sin, had no Savior to pay for their sins, and it was just entirely culturally different.  Killing was an essential part of the law then to wipe out evil and even today it sometimes is.  If we hadn't bombed Hiroshima, Japan would have killed many more innocent lives.  They had still persisted after Nagasaki!  There was no stopping them after wiping out an entire city!  There was no peaceful solution and death was sadly the only answer.  Did innocents die?  Yes, but worse would have come if we had not done anything.  The Nazis were never going to stop for anything.  In war, those things happen and back then death came for breaking the law.  So no, today states do not have to follow this because of this verse: Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."  Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant that Moses and God made, and made it so it no longer binds to us.  Clean animals were to be sacrificed to atone for sins, but Jesus put Himself up in that place for all people after his crucifixion and resurrection.  The old law exists, but no longer binds to us and we will not be judged for not following those as far as I know.  Either way, our sins are washed away. 

    I'd like to point out that this debate on evolution has gone off the rails now and is no longer about evolution :/
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89
    well if there was an objective morality what is it's nature and how do reach it is the only concern but without such yet we are governed by subjectivism. Well in going back to evolution a lot of things christians scientists have argued have been disproved by bio chem tests.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @Imbster  The only way to reach it is by being rid of sin and that is impossible until we are in heaven with God and the devil has been vanquished for good.  The only way to do that is through accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.  John 14:6 " Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""  

    I actually explained how dating methods are flawed in the other debate awaketonowhere started.  I also explained how God created a mature Earth in that.  Go check that out for your claim that evolution and bio chem results disprove creation. 
    Evidence
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89
    not creation in particular but the need for a supreme being to have intelligently designed such and also disproving a christian scientist's view of irreducible complexity.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    I agree with @SuperSith89. Most of us have some sense of what is right or wrong. I think your environment can sometimes make you forget or disregard that basic aspect of ourselves. 


    I agree, if we just look at he complexity of our physical creation this body alone, where we sense the slightest disturbance like a tiny virus, the whole body reacts.
    Now imagine if we were this complex robot, where we would have to go to the manufacturer and get hooked up to a monitor to find such a small thing as a physical virus, it could take years to diagnose.

    So of course we KNOW rights and wrongs, good and bad's, it is within us, and in nature itself.
    There was no need for any Bible before the fall because every human knew right from wrong naturally. Even after the fall, after Cain killed Able, Adam taught his children right from wrong for another 930 years, and his children taught their children.

    But after Adams death, men became more and more rebellious against God, and seemed to deliberately deny what nature itself taught them, we see this when they created their own gods, idols made of wood and stone where they started sacrificing even their own children to these false gods. It got so bad, that we see God tried to wipe man off the face of the Earth.

    Look at how the Bible starts out, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth, .. you shall not kill, steal, .." I mean duh, what, it popped out of nothing? This shows just how deranged man has become for God to have to tell them this??

    As man became wiser, it was inevitable that man comes up with a better idea for creation than saying someone sculpted a body from clay, and Zeus comes along and gives them life. Even today people use that story for Gods creating man, when the Bible is clear that God created man from dust particles, one quantum particle at a time. But no, man twists that and says them quantum particles came from nothing, and for no apparent reason assembled itself.

    Anything but Gods version that's in the Bible, which is evident in nature. Things just don't pop out of nothing and assemble themselves, and if the satanic Big-bangers would even believe that, they would not have built the LHC which purposely tries to create a Big-bang, lol.

    if Big bangs happened from and in nothing, then with all the gazillion particles we have around now, they should be Big-Banging every second, .. by themselves. But after 13.75 Billion years, seems like our Flat Earth is it.
    Unfortunately for 666CERN, even with all the ingredients to create a universe including the most important ingredient Mr. Higgs "boson", and the LHC working 24/7 they cant make it work, .. lol.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Imbster He is talking about this objective morality  


    Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):   


    2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

    Beating slaves
    Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
    Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
    This beautiful morality
    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
    This wonderful objective morality
    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


    “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    This objective morality
    A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

    Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves.

    purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

    This beautiful god-given objective morality
    Deuteronomy 17
    If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
    Which is all justified because of this :
    Mathew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:

    There was no need for any Bible before the fall because every human knew right from wrong naturally. Even after the fall, after Cain killed Able, Adam taught his children right from wrong for another 930 years, and his children taught their children.

    I'm not Christian myself, but if you believe in the word of the bible I can't see how this fits.

    How could Adam and Eve have known of Good and Evil before the fall? The entire rationale for The Fall is that they ate from the Tree of Knoowledge of Good and Evil and then came to understand Good and Evil. Prior to that they had no conception of it.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @Evidence

    Your first post made absolutely no sense. How do system engineers creating robots like asimo prove god? 

    For the second part, all of human races evolved from one species called homo habilis. Homo habilis evolved from austrolopithecus genus which evolved from a common anscetor to all primates (orangutan, gorillas, apes, chimpanzees, humans).

    We look like we fit our environment because we evolved to fit our environment. Our environment is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for our environment because we evolved to fit our environment and our niche.

    We are complex because complexity of living things evolved overtime too. From simple unicellular life that form multicellular colonies to very simple life forms to jawless fish to more complex fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals, each step is more and more complex.
    ErfisflatSuperSith89
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @Imbster ;

    This is the objective morality of the bible that he is talking about

    Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):

    2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

     (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
    Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
    Exodus 21 (NASB):If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.
    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
    Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB) suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves: 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

    This beautiful  objective morality
    Ephesians 522 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
    Deuteronomy 17If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
    and this beautiful god given objective morality
    At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

    Which was accepted and justified by our lord and saviour jesus crust, amen.
    Mathew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Where are the fossils to these species you talk about?  Lucy?  The fossil that was forced down our throats in the 80's and was called the missing link?  The one that turned out to be fake and then evolutionists just swept that under the rug?  Yea....

    Now.  Exodus was written by Moses at about 1465 BC.  Around that date at least.  What year is it?  Oh yes, 2017.  Rules applied to what the world was like then, which you could counter saying Jesus said to follow the law, yet may I point you to this verse: Luke 22:20 "20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.".  Jeremiah 31:33 "33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."  You see now the laws of the old covenant with Moses are no longer binding due to the fact that Jesus became the ultimate payment for all of ours sins.  Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  The laws set before Jesus was crucified and resurrected no longer apply to us and our way to Heaven.  

    1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were written to Timothy.  I hope you realize this.  Most the books during the New Testament are letters to the churches during that time and to certain people.  Same with Ephesians.  Written to the church of Ephesus.  Also, don't you dare cut out verses 25-29 of Ephesians 5.  "25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— "  Imagine if men followed this rule to the dot.  Loving a woman as much as Himself and as much as Christ loved the church.  Jesus fulfilled every single law of the church.  Would any woman have a problem submitting to a man who treated her like that?  Probably not.  

     
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    "Lucy" 

    Swept under the rug? are you pulling this out of your ? Lucy is the best example we have of Australopithecus afarensis. She has bipedal locomotion, upright posture, sloped lower face, no chin and has arms well past her hips based on the skull and the partial skeleton retrieved. It is literally one of the best Australopithecus afarensis we have. Where did you get that she was swept under the rugs. 

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

    You  can compare human skull and skeleton with that of lucy and a chimp above.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins

    "Exodus"

    You just played yourself so hard.  How can you claim those were the rules and morals god gave those specific people and that the rules for 2017 are different when two posts ago you said that morality is absolutely objective and whats right and wrong does not change from culture to culture or from individual to individual. You cant claim morality is objective then claim that both exodus and 2017 can have different morals.

    "New covenant"

    None of these verses declare anything about the old testament. They merely say jesus has started a new testament with the christians or with his followers. Saying anything among the lines of "dont follow the old testament guys" would shatter mathew 5

    "New testament letters"

    Why does it matter who it was written to, it still condones slavery. are you saying it matters who specifically chooses to have slaves and that it is moral under any case for anybody to have slaves?

    Well the bible does 

    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

    "Loving wives"

    Too much love

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

    Why must the women be silent?

    "“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)"

    “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)

    Wh
    at happened to the new testaments' letters being only send to a specific church, You told me first timothy was only being sent to timothy and is not applicable anywhere else. Does not that mean that Ephesians only apply in ephesus and not anywhere else.

    You obviously dropped 
    all the slavery, infidel killing, genocide, sex slavery verses because you can not rebut them.

  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Lucy was discovered to have been a major hoax, but that news is nowhere to be found these days.  Now they have changed evolution to fit the discovery and brainwashed people into believing it to be true.  You still have yet to show me any transitional fossils.  

    Rules and morals are two different things.  Even though those rules are by God, the rules are no longer binding, thus not binding to us through morality.  I find it funny how a non-believer thinks they know more about the covenants than a Christian who studied it for years.  You just pick and choose verses and then forget the other ones entirely so it fits your view.  Jeremiah 31:31-34 "31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
        “when I will make a new covenant
    with the people of Israel
        and with the people of Judah.
    32 It will not be like the covenant
        I made with their ancestors
    when I took them by the hand
        to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they broke my covenant,
        though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
    declares the Lord.
    33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
        after that time,” declares the Lord.
    “I will put my law in their minds
        and write it on their hearts.
    I will be their God,
        and they will be my people.
    34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
        or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know me,
        from the least of them to the greatest,”
    declares the Lord.
    “For I will forgive their wickedness
        and will remember their sins no more.”

    Remember their sins no more.  Sounds like Jesus dying for our sins later on.  This verse proves it.  Also, it explains it here: https://www.gci.org/law/otlaws

    Now I looked up slavery in the Bible and researched a bit and was surprised by many things in this article https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html.

    1: Slavery was different back then and was not centered around race.  It was an economic thing.  It also wasn't as bad.  Many verses command the masters to be fair to them.  It even says to furnish them when they are let off.  Deuteronomy 15:12-15 "12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out"

    2: The Bible condemns man stealing like what happened with the African slave trade.  Exodus 21:16 "16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

    3:  The Bible has a purpose, and that is not to reform society.  It tackles issues from the inside out.  Those who become saved after being slaves to sin then see how slavery of others is wrong now.

    Why must women be silent?  In some churches the women were not taught how to read.  They were supposed to sit in  the back of the church and listen to the sermon, though they knew little of what was said.  Many would cry out to their husbands and ask what was said right in the middle of the sermon.  That is why they were to remain quiet. A few of those rules were for specific churches at that time.  Not all, but some.

    Too much love?  Good comeback I guess.  Or not.  That's all you can come back with?  There is no such thing as too much love.

    Now I may have been mistaken on the letter being strictly for them, but a few of the odd rules are meant specifically for those people/churches.  

    You never addressed those topics, thus I did not discuss them.  At least slavery is explained above.  On murder: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/.  Murder and killing are different in the Bible.  Murder, being premeditated is not allowed.  The actual Hebrew word for the ten commandments is murder and not kill.  http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/murder.html.  I don't claim to know everything about those passages in the Bible ,but I do know God knows what He is doing.  
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  Lucy was discovered to have been a major hoax, but that news is nowhere to be found these days.  Now they have changed evolution to fit the discovery and brainwashed people into believing it to be true.  You still have yet to show me any transitional fossils.  
    So what you're saying is you have no evidence to support your claim and the evidence actually supports the people opposing you? Why would you expect anyone to convince anyone with this?
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @SuperSith89

    http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm#sthash.lmIS7qaF.dpuf -  That's not actually evidence. It's a random on the internet with no expertise saying how he doesn't believe it and asking leading questions.

    https://www.icr.org/article/1072/#sthash.lmIS7qaF.dpuf - This one presents evidence, but false evidence with fallacious logic. For instance it appeals to the fact that Richard Leakey and unnamed others supposedly view this fossil with some suspicion in regards to whether it was a direct ancestor of humans and not an accidental composite.Not only is this an argument from authority logical fallacy, I believe this was Leakey's position around 30 years ago before more Australopithecus afarensis skeletons were found and when the Lucy Skeleton was put on tour a few years back he complained about possible damage to it and described it as an ancestor of humanity.

    Aside from from they only provide two further arguments to support their claim:

    - That the knee joint doesn't belong to the skeleton, which if you read your own article down to the bottom they were forced to retract because it turned out the knee joint was the right one and their claim was false due to having  misunderstood the details of the situation.

    - A single line from a book written 30 years ago which is provided without context and as it isn't commonly available (I just checked online) can't be checked. 

    It provides no verifiable evidence to support your view.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89

    "Lucy"

    Stop making claims without evidence ffs. If you claim Lucy is a hoax, I expect you to prove that.

    "Transitional fossils"

    If you  actually care about the truth and the evidence and not just wanting to prove others wrong and to prove yourself right  then check out The university of Maryland's collection and pictures.

     https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides09.pdf

    Skip to the human evolution section and they will give you a diagram of all the intermediate species with pictures of skull fossils.

    We have fossils of every single intermediate species between humans and the common anscestor of primates including but not limited to Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), australopithecus africanus (Taung chuld fossil), homo erectus and homo habilis. a few of those fossils are on the Smithsonian virtual online museum. Check it out.


    "Rules and morals"

    Morals are rules, and those morals rules are in the bible where it says for example if whoever does whatever, kill him. Thats a rule concerning morality or moral rules.

    "OT laws"

    The verse you provided just says he will establish a new covenant with the people of israel. nothing about laws at all. Even if it did what you are trying so hard for it to mean, it would contradict mathew 5.

    "Pick and Choose"

    does this even mean? IF the bible is a perfect book by a perfect man, should not all of it be perfect, what do you mean by pick and choose. Even if I pick and choose and find contradictions between two passages like mathe 5 and whatever new covenant passage that was, you have literally affirmed that there are contradictions in the bible that I should not pick and choose.

    "Slavery"

    If you are condoning slavery just so you could prove your faith is not wrong, that is when you know you need to stop.  

    actually most of what you said is pure . Slaves were prisoners of war, children or kidnapped people and its trade was ok and it was definetly racial since most slaves were black or outcasts. The church realized they were wrong in the 6th century or 500 years later and decided to not abolish slavery but to give the slaves some rights like getting married.

    http://www.ephesus.us/ephesus/slavery_in_ephesus.htm


    "The Bible condemns man stealing like what happened with the African slave trade."

    You say this then go right away and uote exodus. Two paragraphs above you say that the ot laws are not in use anymore. are you schizophrenic? 

    "beating and submitting to your wives"

    When I said too much love , i was being sarcastic ffs. I uoted two bible passages that show that women are inferior and should have no authority and should have their hands cut off if they tried to separate a fight between two males.

    "Women's silence"

    So they should be silent because they asked questions about the sermon and what they did not understand? Is this the type of critical thinking you would teach your kids?

    "Murder and killing are different"

    They are synonyms buddy.


    You have not even addressed killing children.

    This not only shows modern civilized secular society would reject the barbaric practices in the bible like killing non-believers, beating and cutting off women's hands, teaching women how to submit and be silent and mass genocide and killing children ancd condoning slavery all carried out and encouraged by your illogical trinitarian god  (seriously how do you have three persons each being fully god and claim there is one god at the same time, there is no escape you have to admit each is fully god because jesus was FULLY god and fully man - hypostatic union. But then if each person is god and there are 3 persons, there are 3 gods). This shows objective morality does not exist and that all of our morals are subjective.
    SuperSith89
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit

    Got to disagree. Manslaughter is a type of killing but is legally distinct from murder. That's before we even get into types of killings which are completely legal like self defence, killing an enemy in a war, states executing condemned criminals or killing animals for food.

    Murder refers to a specific subset of killings. All murders involve killing, not all killings are murders.

    Agree in general with the rest.
    SuperSith89
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @m_abusteit @AlwaysCorrect

    "Lucy" and "Taung chuld fossil"

    Since it's initial discovery, numerous “Australopithecine” skeletons have been found. many leading evolutionists agree that Lucy is simply an extinct type of ape, similar to modern pygmy chimpanzees and nothing more. They may have walked slightly more upright than most apes, but were not bipedal or erect, could not talk, spent most time in trees, and walked on all fours. Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines along with a team of five specialists coming to the conclusion that all the various specimens of Australopithecus they examined were only an ordinary ape genus and definitely not bipedal.  The French Science and Life magazine ran the cover story in May 1999 “Goodbye Lucy” writing about how “Lucy” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus was not the root of the human race and needs to be removed from our supposed family tree. There should be thousands of transitional fossils. Not one of them is valid.

    http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/human_evolution_error.php

    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html

    https://books.google.com/books?id=qKSFk3DdfWwC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Solly+Zuckerman+and+Professor+Charles+Oxnard+did+15+years+of+research+on+Australopithecines&source=bl&ots=wAA0B6cyp9&sig=QCJrIsp2uhu6TuL85tVzFNSM2fs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA8o6W29bUAhUEeSYKHffDC84Q6AEIJTAD#v=onepage&q=Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines&f=false
    SuperSith89m_abusteit
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit  I'll let @Erfisflat deal with the lucy thing, but onto the rest.

    Murder and killing are still two different things and the rule for killing is separate than the moral law of murdering.  Murder being premeditated and killing being either accidental or a part of war or self defense.

    Matthew 5:17-18 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED."  Jesus was referring to His death and resurrection here.  The law was to be followed and He would fulfill it until He died to make the new covenant in which we are washed of sin through Jesus and new laws are set in place.  Some of the only laws that still bind to us though are the ten commandments.  

    What I mean by pick and choose is that you pick a Bible verse that without anything else will serve you, but leave out other verses that server the Bible's message that is opposite yours.  Like with Matthew 5.  

    That article you gave proves my point on slavery .  At the end it says: "In the 6th century AD because of the influence of Christianity, slaves gained some more rights such as participation in unions or real estate. Also slaves who had shown trustiness to their lord would be set free. It became possible for a slave to buy his or her freedom with the money he/she had saved. Because of these it is possible to read about slaves who became bankers or merchants later in their life during history."  This quote proves they had a much better life than ones during the civil war era.  You also disregarded any verse and failed to provide a historically accurate source.  http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_Slavery1.pdf

    I am not schizophrenic thank you very much.  I am justifying the laws of the OT, which you seem to want to attack.  You try to use the verses against the current day and then you go on to say the laws were for that time and immoral.  I am fighting both points.  

    Does 1 Timothy say to beat your wives?  No, a rule is the old covenant does!  Submitting and beating are opposite to each other.  Submitting does not mean a man can do whatever to his wife, but merely the wife letting the husband be the ruler of the home as long as he treats her like he should and puts God first in his life.  

    I did not explain why they must stay silent well enough.  The husbands would have them stay silent, which everyone should at a sermon, and have them wait to ask questions until after the service.  Of course I will teach my kids this.  Stay quiet and ask questions later.  It's rude otherwise.  

    For the rest I don't really have an answer.  I can't explain why everything happens in the Bible, and I'm not afraid to say it.  I'll justify slavery in the Bible, but the rest I'll have to give up on because I can't really guess to why and only know that God is God and He is justified.



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89
    I'm assuming, since I've seen no response, that it's been dealt with.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat  Maybe not.  I'd like to add that only 40% of it is found.  How can you know exactly how it was when the knee was in an entirely separate place and it only works when you say the hip is bent, yet only one is there with nothing to compare to.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89 of all the "transitional" fossils I've ever researched, they all turned out to be either hoaxes or just apes or men.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch