@Dee A woman does not have a pregnancy abortion with a medical doctor, or surgeon she admits to perform what could be call incorrectly a abortion. Woman as a united state have female specific amputations, woman have pregnancy abortions only when not having sexual intercourse during the process of ovulation.
>>Why did the religious authority's at the time believe that this was true?
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
The so called religious "authorities" most likely did not believe the garbage that they were spoon feeding their credulous votaries. Since they assumed "authority" over things that pertained to God, people would look to them naively for answers regarding things, such as what they saw in the sky. Not to show how ignorant that they really were, they made stuff or repeated known fables up that seemed credible at the time, things they thought could not be verified, so as to maintain their dominance.
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)
The only true religious authority is God's Word. There were a group of religious leaders called the Nicolaitanes that brought impurity into the assembly (church), mostly likely the first seeds of clericalism within Christendom. "Nico" means to rule and "laitan" as used in the word laity, means the people. The "deeds" and the "doctrines" of the Nicolaitanes are that which God hates (Rev. 2:6,15). Doing and teaching things that are not in God's Word, which is specifically forbidden.
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up infavor of one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Priest or other titles that assume authority over believers are not found in the Bible. Papacy is just not there. What the Bible does teach is the Priesthood of all believers, not a special class of people called clergy who rule over another class called laity.
Speaking of all believers .. "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5) also see Rev. 1:6, 5:10.
The best argument I've ever heard for the Intelligent Design concept was a series of questions regarding a very large book.
So imagine a very large, thick literature book. This book is approximately seven inches thick and contains 2,300 pages of highly complex syntax along with gorgeous contemporary paintings. Ask yourself the following question as you're holding the book and thumbing through the pages: Is is possible, in any amount of time, that all 2,300 pages of that book could have assembled themselves in sequential order? Is it possible that over time, those pages could have materialized the necessary ink to form English letters and that those clusters of ink could've then organized themselves into words and subsequently the words arranged themselves into proper syntax? Additionally, while the syntax is forming itself, simultaneously...is it possible that ink could have spontaneously developed on other portions of the pages in highly complex patters and hues to generate the necessary appeal to the eye that's commonly referred to as Art?
After you answer these questions, ask yourself..."Am I willing to purchase into the idea that all of this not only could happen to form a book, but that it did happen"?
The reason this example is valid is because the alternative to Intelligent Design involves random happenstance and that the universe materialized in one way or another in a completely random fashion without any purpose or guidance. If you honestly can believe that DNA, the absolute most complex material ever to be discovered, somehow randomly materialized and organized itself into the infinitely complex system that it is today, then it should be nothing to purchase into the idea that a 2,300 page literature book can materialize itself from essentially nothing.
Mind you, most people that argue on either side of this issue are really rude and nasty about it. Keep in mind that I didn't make or generate this video. Watch it or not, your choice.
The video is very educational. Carlos is right Paul never taught Jesus is God. The concept of Jesus being God is developed through deductive reasoning. If the scriptures did not actively speak against it, this would be a viable concept. But because the concept is illogical and unscriptural, Paul did not teach it.
Debra is a neural network-based AI. It learns from the patterns it sees on the Internet, over time seeing what patterns are generally perceived as good or bad by people. For example, the word "rape" rarely comes up with civil, peaceful discussions, and is much more often found in heated aggressive ones - hence Debra learns to associate it with being inconsiderate.
Debra is not a fully autonomous AI, in the sense that it follows the same simple algorithm and will follow it forever; it does not try to modify it to better adapt it to the challenges posed to it. Debra is not a general intelligence; it is a static, virtual intelligence.
It is amazing that it works as well as it does, considering the complexity of human interactions and language.
Most modern music isn't aggressive anymore. That went out in the last decade. There still is a variety of styles today, but someone who's used to classic, or classical styles may have trouble deciphering the different styles there are. This discussion is more about the content rather than the style of modern music. I guess if you can't actually hear the lyrics, that could be a huge barrier to understanding the message. Most modern music shys away from social commentary or political issues. Any political or social messages are made to be purposefully vague so it's difficult or impossible to understand the true message. Neil Young doesn't let himself be constrained by social standards and his music has become very topical in the past 20 years. I don't believe any modern musicians will be willing to make the types of songs Neil Young is asking them to make. I'm hoping I'll be proven wrong.
Agreed. It's irritating to see Americans think China is the bad guy, but it's the American labor force who wants our minimum wages to continue to go up, but most Americans have no understanding that that causes prices to go up for everybody. If the minimum wage was removed, everything would be cheap, and American companies would actually consider hiring American employees, and staying in America. It is also a common held belief that we owe China billions of dollars because of a trade deficit we have with China. That's absolutely untrue though. Our debt with China has to do with our national debt caused by our social programs and all the money we spend on them, and since the US has the best loan repayment rating in the world, foreign investors like to buy American bonds, chiefly Chinese investors. It's most irritating to see how politicians on both sides will allow the American public to have these grave misconceptions about what's actually happening, and instead of telling the public the truth, they'll tell the public there gonna make China play fair, and there gonna raise the minimum wage more.
I'll give Debra the benefit of the doubt, and say that it simply does what it's programmed to do. Debra merely cannot examine an entire text in-depth and attempt to interpret the meaning of what we say. And of course, there are certain trigger words that Debra renders as "bad," which automatically lowers the overall analysis.
I wouldn't pay much attention to it, but I do agree that it's an unnecessary implementation. Your arguments are genuinely interpreted by whoever comes to read it.
Some say that science and religion are both belief systems. The problem with this thinking is that it is completely wrong for one very simple reason.
Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood.
A. The Bible is to better expand our understanding and to serve as a guide of conduct towards everything which we experience in our daily lives.
Believing in something requires almost zero learning, you just believe it and that's it, you are good to go.
A. Belief is an inferior, misleading term for them who don't see and who are unable to grasp the gravity of the teachings. Knowledge is by far the more proper way of referring to faith. There are those who know God and there are those who don't...
Science on the other hand takes study to understand so it's not easy, it's hard work and it can take a long time to achieve an understanding of it.
A. Whole life is a study of every morsel bit which surrounds us. The Bible is a textbook guide full of knowledge but it's not remotely easy or simple to understand. It certainly requires an in-depth study for more than snippets of shallow surface understanding. A lifelong worth of study and experience and you'd still be a toddler novice in relation to its entirety...
Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it.
A. Man-made religion of theoretical hypotheses which no one ever witnessed and can't ever be proven, themselves miraculous in nature as if conjured from a great book of wizardry and miracles. Take for example the Big Bang which came as a minuscule from nowhere to give us everything and all the versatility of life and self-awareness from materials which assemble themselves to complex strands of DNA and more complex and necessary RNA? Every law of physics broken per convenience of saying "laws did not exist in the early universe" OK, I mind "early universe" how early and how far are we in to early, mid or late? Important that we know because by implying that the rules of the "early universe"were different than current, you're saying that all the rules behaved differently than which must mean that the rules are not rigid and that they are evolving, perhaps even adjusting to the rate of expansion? Can it be that none of the physical laws are rigid? In non-space void of time, how can we describe the process which occurred within a singularity which did not exist in a non-construct of space and time, to trigger the action of expansion? Is it scientific "knowledge" or modern fresh, man-made religion? Are these not miracles much more (dark matter and dark energy etc.) which the scientific community attempts to pass as facts?
To illustrate this point I leave you with this question:
Do you understand how an internal combustion engine works or do you believe in it?
A. I understand that an engine is pitifully inefficient, and I believe that it's reliable to a limited extent and I know that you don't know the born from nature of the materials which enable you to create and run the engine. Where born your conscious cognitive and able body to master the build of the engine? Compare the most advanced of its kind with the complexity of a single celled organism than proceed to construct a single atom of anything from nothing... Can you not consume, what is the source of all of your consumption, how and why does it all come together as a perfect fit to sustain your every need?
| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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!