Jesus would or does oppose the death penalty, change my mind. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Jesus would or does oppose the death penalty, change my mind.
in Religion

Zombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    Why would you want someone to change your mind?   Your fellow Americans have re -invented Jesus anyway into a full blown caricature of what they see as the new revised version , American Christians mostly see Universal health care as an outrage , Gun rights would be just fine with the re -invented  Jesus too , global warming of course would be a myth under the new Jesus and sadly I could go on 

    The version above is the one I hear most from American Christians where European Christians countries actually think Jesus would have been anti gun , pro universal health care and have a care for the environment, I know which version I prefer if I was into religion 
    PlaffelvohfenYeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987calebsica
  • @Dee This debate is about whether Jesus would oppose or support the death penalty. Stop trolling, and stay on topic. Did you even read my introductory evidence, or are you just point farming?
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited February 28
    @YeshuaBought

    >This debate is about whether Jesus would oppose or support the death penalty. Stop trolling, and stay on topic. Did you even read my introductory evidence, or are you just point farming? 


    The veracity of my words may be evidenced in one reading even to a tyro in the art of rational  discourse and the implication regarding the broader meaning ascertained, I’m afraid this negates you from the process because as I’ve garnered thus  far you display the intelligence of an unwatered pot plant and the “ personality “as well I’d wager 



    YeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987
  • @Dee You are surely trolling. You have presented no evidence. Your word alone is not evidence of anything. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • He would, of course - but then he likely would oppose any penalty. His ideology was based on the concept of solely individual responsibility, and forgiveness of others' sins. That is, if someone committed any sort of crime, Jesus would say that that someone must deal with his/her own demons, and nobody should hold them accountable, since their business is dealing with their demons and their demons alone.

    That is concerning the real historical persona, Jesus of Nazareth. I do not know what the Biblical Jesus would do, as I do not know much about him.
  • @MayCaesar Prove it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • dboxdbox 30 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Where do you get your information?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    @dbox

    I studied the history of Ancient Rome from multiple books written by recognised researchers in the field. Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty significant figure in Judea, and a lot of his teachings survived in written form to this day.

    I suspect that Jesus depicted in the Bible is pretty different from the real Jesus, but I would not know for sure.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @dbox So you can't prove it? Way to deflect.
    Zombieguy1987
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 183 Pts
    edited March 1
    Well technically, his very return would kill an awful lot of people...  Paul says people will be destroyed “by the splendor of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and worst in his Apocalypse... Luke 21:34-36 is quite ominous... And Armageddon isn't described as a joy ride... It's even scarier if you think he already knew what is going to happen (it's an omniscience side effect I hear) and purposefully played suspiciously nice on the first run, so that he would take us all by surprise by arriving at any time with Armageddon, you know, Samuel L Jackson style, BOOM, gotcha mofu's!!  

    It doesn't sound like a guy who'd give a damn, sounds at least like a sociopath but dangerously borders psychopathy... But hey, who knows what resurrection does to one's mind you know, it's scary...


    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen So you refuse to review my evidence?
  • Let's just ignore the bible... The book that is suppose to the be the word of god... Which supports violence, sexism and racism...

    Jesus seems too be a hypocrite
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @YeshuaBought

    If I only take into account what people say, than yes, he would be against it. 
    But I question the motives of someone who committed suicide by cops... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • dboxdbox 30 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Not trying to be pushy, but just out of curiosity could you provide me with your favorite one of those books so I could evaluate your position a bit more in depth?

    Also, what makes you favor the resources you used over the writing of the Apostles? I'm asking genuinely, not in a condescending way.
  • dboxdbox 30 Pts
    edited March 1
    @YeshuaBought @MayCaesar

    God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are always in perfect agreement with one another, that is no thought, desire or action is ever contradictory. In Genesis 9:5-6 (Long before Israel was a nation over which God was King), the death penalty was instituted. Later, Israel practiced the death penalty according to God's direct command. Paul went on to teach in Romans 13 that all authority is established by God and that if we rebel against that authority we should remember that the authorities do not bear the sword in vain. In and of itself, the death penalty does not contradict the character of Christ, who is God. There are some sins that merit the death penalty and to withhold that just penalty would actually be unjust in the sight of God. 

    Also, I do not think John 8 is not really a strong defense of your position as that story was most likely a later addition to a copy of John's Gospel as is footnoted in many Bibles. Beyond that, even if it was accepted as belonging to the original Gospel of John, it still does not support the position that Jesus opposes the death penalty as a means by which a nation punishes certain criminals. This story is similar in principle to Jesus telling the lame man that his sins were forgiven which caused an uproar because only God can forgive sins, and he appeared to them to be just a man. He said that he did this to demonstrate that he has the authority to forgive sins, and he is more than just what they can see. This authority to withhold due punishment and instead forgive sins is Christ's alone, which is what we see here. This was a unique situation where the Lord chose to withhold punishment, not teaching about national law.

    Respectfully,
    dbox
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited March 1
    @dbox

    Youre Incorrect on so many levels regarding this .
     Jesus overturned the Old Testament law that allowed retributive violence. You jump from place to place the Bible attempting to chery pick your way out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself 

    The Bible says “an eye for an eye.” This principle of an eye for an eye (something that many scholars believe at the time was designed to reduce violence by limiting it to a proportional response) is called the “Lex Talionis.” Jesus very explicitly went on the record in telling his followers to no longer obey the Lex Talionis:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Matthew 5:38-42

    So yes, it is true the Old Testament allowed capital punishment and retributive violence. Jesus however, weighed in as disagreeing with this principle — or at a minimum, instructing that it should no longer be observed. Therefore, it is not possible to argue a Christian case in support of the death penalty while citing passages from the Hebrew scriptures, because this will put one at odds with Jesus himself.

    During his ministry, Jesus publicly thwarted an execution.

    If  were to say “he who is without sin may cast the first stone” even the most ardent atheist would know what you were referencing: the fact that Jesus stopped an execution.


    It’s remarkable Atheists appreciate these noble aspects of Jesus yet you oppose them to reinvent a Jesus that  fits your reinterpretation of what Jesus actually said to suit a deeply immoral American practice  , I bet on a side note you would also say Jesus was pro gun and anti Universal healthcare and welfare? 

  • dboxdbox 30 Pts

    I am in the process of editing my previous post not in that I am changing what was said I'm just adding to it so hopefully it is a little bit more clear what I mean. Now that I have read this post I will try to respond to that in my edit as well, though that will make it a pretty lengthy response so just give me a bit of time. For what it's worth I do my very best to make sure that I am not cherry picking and conflating issues in the Bible just to fit a preconceived notion of what I think it should say because of some presuppositions that I hold due to my culture. My goal is to deal as truthfully and honestly with the text but it is complex in that it is a massive book with over 40 authors from a time span of 1,500 years and all of that written in a culture that is extremely far removed from my own. I said that to say that if I misspeak it is because I make mistakes not because I'm trying to be purposely misleading. I promise to try to deal with the things that you say I have misspoken on without being dismissive.
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @dbox

    Thanks a lot for that I appreciate it , it’s good to debate with someone that at least knows the Bible Ethang I’m afraid doesn’t even know the passages I’m talking about ......I look forward to your response
  • dboxdbox 30 Pts
    @Dee (@YeshuaBought @MayCaesar)

    This is so long, I'm sorry but it was a complex topic...I spent like 6 hours on this, so take your time lol. 

    To begin, I would like to explain my understanding of your position, as well as define how I understand the categories that pertain to your position so we can minimize misunderstandings. If I am wrong in my understanding or miss a point of yours, please let me know what is wrong and briefly explain why it is wrong so I can better understand your position and how you understand mine. First, I understand your position to be that Christ rescinded the Jewish principle of Lex Talionis and as such the due punishment under the Law of Moses, the death penalty, is no longer applicable in Israel or in any other Nation.

     As to my categories, I note a natural distinction in the Bible between ancient Israel's government, the church's government and the governments of the Nations of the World. I mention this because the relationship each group bears to God is different and therefore the application of the Law of God in each group differs. I will explain that more in the examples of the following paragraphs.

     Finally, I hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, so I do not view Jesus as a different God than the Most-High God of the Old Testament. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God the Son come in the flesh, so when I say, “God instituted…” I am including God the Son who came as Jesus. This means that when Jesus comes in the New Testament and teaches contrary to the Pharisees and Scribes concerning the Old Testament Law, he is not throwing it away, but rather teaching its proper understanding, context and application as he was the one who gave the Laws in the first place. I know that some Laws were done away with after his resurrection, but we can cover that later if you would like.

     For this conversation, I intend primarily to show that the death penalty for murder was established by God in the Old Testament and was supported by Jesus in the New Testament. I also intend to show that how Christ viewed and applied the principle of Lex Talionis did not in any way negate the validity of the judicial application of the death penalty, but rather that it reestablished the original and intended purpose of the principle. I will touch on other subjects, but ultimately if these two points are true, then my case for Jesus view on the penal administration of the death penalty stands true. (Sidebar: I am not cherry picking, I am looking at how the death penalty was dealt with in different times and in different contexts. i.e. Pre Israel, Intra Israel, Post Israel.)

    First, we see in Genesis 9:5-6 (well before Israel was a nation over which God was King), the death penalty was instituted by God to punish murderers. This was because man was made as God’s representative on earth, so for a man to murder another man was equivalent to declaring war on God (like the act of killing ambassadors of other nations). This command came immediately following the flood and was given to Noah and his sons, the progenitors of every nation on the earth today. I state this to show that this the penal administration of the death penalty specifically for the sin of murder was something that God expects of every governing authority. We see this idea echoed by Paul in Romans 13 (One of Jesus disciples) where he states that the government is established by God to carry out God’s wrath on evil doers. This shows that man is not at liberty to enforce laws that are not aligned with God’s Laws even if by principle alone. However, they are expected to rule based on His commands, and as this is a command of God, it is not immoral to follow that.

    Moving from the time of Noah to the time of Moses and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, we see that Israel’s law as given on Sinai had provisions for the death penalty according to God's direct command, as He was the immediate King over that nation at the time. This is distinct from the universal command of Genesis 9:5-6 in that the death penalty was prescribed uniquely to Israel as a nation the punishment of crimes like idolatry, sorcery, and adultery now in addition to murder. Failing to punish these sins the way God prescribed was rebellion against God and was punishable by death. As it relates to Lex Talionis, you noted that many scholars understand that this was not a prescription for personal vengeance outside the guidance of the judges and elders, but a guard against it. I agree and would add that this principle ensured the equality of punishment which was not always the same as the offense but was considered to be a reasonable restitution. Furthermore, if the parties involved were unable to reach an agreement, the cases were to be overseen by the Judges of Israel in court (Exodus 21, Deut 19). Also, while the Judges evaluated the legitimacy of the case as it pertained to the law and prescribed the due restitution, the carrying out of the sentence according to the prescriptions of the judges was done by the individuals and it had to be exactly as they said under penalty of death. This is notably different from an individual taking the law into their hand as we might mean it today as there were governing laws as to how it was done.

    Viewing now Jesus teachings in his sermon on the mount, I think there are a few things to note. First, he was teaching his disciples about how to live a godly life and how to live in light of the proper understanding of the law, not speaking as to what the laws should be. Next, He said in Matthew 5:17-18 that he was not coming to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them and that not one thing will change in the Law until heaven and earth pass away. The context of the laws to which he was referring is in the following verses of the passage (as we know some of the ceremonial laws like the dress and dietary laws are no longer binding based on other texts which show that). Finally, in 5:20-21 Jesus states that the righteousness of his disciples must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees and goes on to say that “you have heard that it was said…but I say to you…”. This was not Jesus overturning the Laws of the Old Testament, but rather correcting what the teachers of the Israelites, the Scribes and Pharisees “said” (which Jesus did often and forcefully) and restoring to the “sheep without a shepherd” the original understanding of the laws. Some theologians say that Jesus dealt here with not just the “letter of the law”, but “the spirit of the law”. He does not rescind the law but makes clear the purpose of the law and shows how to live in light of it at the level of the heart before legal action is even an issue. The Pharisees you could say would teach that this is what you must do when there is a disagreement, but Jesus is saying that this is what is available to you for protection if you can not reach an agreement privately as brothers.

    As it relates to murder, it should be noted that murder does not fall under the category of retaliation or Lex Talionis in Jesus’ Sermon. This is dealt with separately in verses 21-22 where he does not rescind the prescribed Old Testament punishment of death, but rather extends the scope of what is seen as equally sinful in the eyes of God and is the standard by which God views them as guilty before Him (i.e. “the fires of hell”). He is saying, do not just worry about what punishment the Sanhedrin are authorized to administer for murder, but more importantly evaluate your heart for unjust anger as well as the words that flow from such anger because though they stop short of physical violence, this is the standard by which God judges.

    Regarding the principle of Lex Talionis which comes into light in verses 38-41, Jesus again does not do away with the legal principle, but rather applies another Old Testament principle (Leviticus 19:18 “do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself”) in conjunction with it to show his disciples that just because the law affords the opportunity for legal retribution and it may come to that, it is not the first, the only, or the best resolution. This is supported by what he says in 5:25 which states that if your brother has something against you, go and be reconciled to him before it goes to the courts and note v 26, “Truly…you will not get out until you have paid the last penny”. This is the principle of Lex Talionis in practice and Jesus warns that they are accountable to it if they take it there. Jesus goes on to say (v 39-40) that if you do wrong against someone else and they decide to take it to the courts, do not retaliate but if they slap your cheek (a legal practice in Jewish courts seen during the trial of Jesus in Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65, John 18:22 and 19:3) or demand your tunic, instead turn the other cheek or give your cloak as well.

    The teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 mirrors this in his counsel to let the Church elders settle disputes rather than go to the authorities. Here I will say that it should be noted that the expectation for the Church in their actions are higher because as those who have been forgiven a debt we could not afford, that debt being paid by Jesus, we should be quick to forgive those who are indebted to us. This is God’s standard of righteousness for all men, and though most ignore it, it is what Christ would have us do as his Church. That is why if the matter cannot be resolved at the private level, it should be taken to the elders who understanding the Lex Talionis as well as Jesus forgiveness at the cost of his life, could encourage a mutual resolution based on these principles in order to avoid the shame of needing the courts. In a just court under the Law of Moses, there is only retribution for wrongdoing, and a judge who honors the letter of the law as is proper would be in violation of that very law to dismiss a violation of the law.

    After Jesus died and resurrected appointing apostles to establish the Church, Paul went on to teach in Romans 13:1-5 that all authority is established by God for the purpose of carrying out the wrath of God against those who do wrong, and that if we rebel against that authority we should know that this is seen as rebellion against God and that the authorities do not bear the sword in vain. We see here that God uses penal codes as one means by which to judge the people who break His Laws insofar as the laws of man align with the laws of God, whether directly or principally. Just in case you find me to be taking too much liberty in that last phrase, I will show you one example for the sake of brevity. Acts 5:28-29 reads, “We (the Sanhedrin) gave you strict orders not to teach in this name (Jesus)…Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man’s blood.” But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men”. So, up to the point that man’s laws violate God’s Laws, we are to follow man’s laws as if they were given to us by God himself, which according to Romans 13 they were, even if by proxy.

    In summary 1) God (including God the Son, who would come as Jesus) universally established the death penalty for murder in Genesis 9:6 meaning that all Nations are accountable to this very basic Law. This was never spoken against by Christ, so even if we found (which we did not) that He overturned the Law for Israel specifically or that it was no longer applicable after the destruction of Israel and the Temple (I can explain more on this), we are still left with the universal command to all people groups. 2) This law was upheld in the government of Israel. 3) Jesus who was born under the law of Israel did not rescind that law or the prescribed judicial punishment of it, that is death, either for Israel or for any other Nation. 4) Paul, taught by Christ, teaches submission to governing authorities as that office is established by God for the purpose of being the avenger who carries out God’s wrath on evildoers. 5) This power is shown to carry the authority of God up to the point where it violates God’s Law either directly or principally.

    Based on this I argue that the death penalty as a general rule was established by God as a rule for all mankind and is still universally commanded by God (including God the Son, Jesus) to be judicially exercised at the very least for the punishment of murder. While there may be practices related to the scope and administration of that law that are not in keeping with God’s intention for its role in the penal system, the punishment itself is not only in keeping with the Law of God but is actually commanded of all governments.


    P.S. I saved this for last because I do not think it fits well into this discussion as it is not dealing with retribution or murder. Beyond that, it neither supports the position that Jesus universally opposes the death penalty as a general principle of judicial punishment nor does it show that he rescinded the Old Testament punishment for adultery in Israel. Jesus was confronted by the Scribes and Pharisees about a woman whom they claimed was caught in the act of adultery, and they asked him what they should do considering the law states they should stone her. This was done not out of concern for the law, but as the text says, to get him to say something by which they could bring a charge against him. The areas that he could have gone wrong are: 1) He opposes the law of Moses, (something they often accused him of though he never did) thereby discrediting him amongst the Jews. 2) He states that she should be put to death, which was outside of his position as he was not a member of the Sanhedrin (though as God he had every right) and would discredit him amongst the Jews. More than this, the Jews were not able to declare someone guilty of deserving death or administer death without approval from the Roman governor for a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Politically the Jews were subject to the Romans, and just as when they tried to trap Jesus with the question of whether or not they should pay taxes to Caesar, here too they hoped he would declare her guilt worthy of death and call them to perform the execution so they could turn him over to the Romans as a usurper (John 19…the Jews said if Pilate released Jesus, Pilate was an enemy of Caesar for aiding a man who claimed to be king which was seen as a rebellion against Caesar's throne, though Jesus was innocent of this claim). The Jews themselves said they were not allowed to put people to death during the trial of Jesus before Pilate. So, Jesus being aware of the traps gave an answer that sidestepped both without sacrificing the truth. By answering that those of them who were without sin could cast the first stone he accomplished a few things:

    1) He upheld the Levitical law that claimed that the accusers must be the first to throw the stones. This ensured that the accusations were not made lightly because if there was a false witness being made or they were somehow complicit in the crime, the punishment they sought for the accused fell on them.

    2) He upheld the stoning of this woman as a legally valid punishment according to the Law for her alleged sin. He did this by prompting for them to cast the stones, but only after shining a light on the fact that their condemnation of her in this sin was only going to highlight their hypocrisy. Their refusal to act indicates most likely some level of complicity in the sin in general, if not in this situation specifically. Acting would also put them at odds with Rome, which was not something they desired. However, in their refusal to act, they violated the express Law of Moses, putting them in the position of guilt they had tried to force on Jesus.

    3) He avoided stepping out of his place in taking the place of the Sanhedrin or civil magistrates who were the authority in charge of pronouncing the validity of the death sentence, thereby being submissive to the laws of the land. While she was in violation of the Law of Moses, it was up to the witnesses to accuse her according to the Law, not Jesus. Up to that point, there had been no mention of a lawful court case, but the act was simply stated to have been seen, and not even by the Pharisees necessarily as it was not made clear in the text. This was a violation of the standards set forth for proper Mosaic due process.

    He concludes once they leave by asking her, did no one condemn you? To which she replied no. With no willing eyewitness testimony (due to their shame of being guilty of the same sin, or because they bore false witness) she was free of punishment under the penal code of Moses. As such Christ says that he does not condemn her either, for legally how could he not being of the court or having witnessed anything? This being done he commands her to go and sin no more, for whether or not she was guilty before men of this crime, she is still guilty before God and called to repent of her sins. I think this makes it clear that this passage in no way shows that Jesus takes issue with the death penalty as punishment, but to the contrary that he supported it but only when it was done according to the Law of Moses. Beyond that, he most likely saved this woman from an unjust punishment by hypocritical or lying accusers and showed her that while God is merciful in the wise way his laws are made, his mercy is meant to lead to repentance.


    Respectfully,
    dbox

     

    ethang5
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @dbox

    Thank you for that d and thank you for taking your time and so much of it to make an argument, it’s great pity you couldn’t educate Ethang in how a Christian should behave as he believes in rabidly attacking anyone who disagrees with him , he could learn a lesson or two from you 

    I will respond tomorrow
  • searsear 101 Pts

    Jesus would or does oppose the death penalty, change my mind.

    Believers in Christ claim the Holy Bible says the way to Jehovah is through Christ. But some also say the trinity is one.

    Genesis teaches us that humans are created in gods own image & likeness. And those that presume to be experts about it say god is immortal.
    Thus, humans were created immortal.

     BUT !!

    god warned: bite the apple and "ye shall surely die".

    Thus, our mortality is the price we pay for Eve's original sin.
    Jesus, a member of the trinity, is responsible for IMPOSING the death penalty on each of us us !!
    If JC opposes the death penalty, why does he inflict it on every single one of us, just cause Eve wanted a snack?
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited March 5
    @dbox

    Thank you for that lengthy piece and taking your time to put your thoughts in print.

    Why does an all powerful god create beings give them free will then destroy them for excercising free will?
    He knows what they are going to do so what’s the point
    ? If it’s to instruct others why does it do it over two million times in the Bible?

    The first problem for me regarding the law in biblical times is the fact on a reading of the Bible that the “morality “of God changes from a wrathful, vengeful god to the complete opposite in the New Testament, how can an entity that Christians claim to be all loving be the total opposite in the New Testament?

    The god of the Bible by what your posting demonstrates goes through the most astonishing machinations to make his intentions known and even to this day Christians totally disagree with each other on interpretations which is why we 30 ,000 plus denominations of Christianity so which one is a seeker of truths meant to believe?

    Only the most uncivilized countries retain the death penalty it’s non existent in Europe.
    Why could all powerful entity not make his intentions clearer as in why do Christians go from one section of the Bible to justify another?
    God fully approved off and sanctioned slavery how can a loving god state that owing another as property is “moral ?” There are also instructions on owning sex slaves, Jesus never once spoke out against the henious act of slavery 

    How could an all loving god be capable of wrath or vengeance?
    What sin or crime demands an eternity in Hell if I can forgive others why can an all loving god not?

    Again thank you I appreciate the effort you made in putting this piece together, it refreshing to hear from a Christian who doesn’t fly into a rage like Ethang when questioned 
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    >Thank you for that d and thank you for taking your time and so much of it to make an argument, it’s great pity you couldn’t educate Ethang in how a Christian should behave

    You post offensive gifs of Jesus, insult believers (yeshuabought even accused you of trolling) and act generally like rear-end on the religion board, but if a believer slaps you back, you go haywire.

    >as he believes in rabidly attacking anyone who disagrees with him , he could learn a lesson or two from you 

    Stop talking about me you obsessed loser. And stop talking about good board behavior, you hypocritical fake.

    You are vulgar and rude, and every board member has seen it. Watching you pretend to be innocent now is disgusting.

    Lick your wounds, grow up, and be a man. No one cares what you think of me.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @ethang5

    THE FURIOUS VICIOUS CHRISTIAN TROLL ETHANG HAS ASKED THE SAME QUESTION REPEATEDLY NOW 53 TIMES I’VE EXPLAINED PATIENTLY 53 TIMES 


    HERE IS THE FURIOUS VICIOUS TROLL ETHANG BEING TOLD YET AGAIN .....WATCH HIS STUNNED INCOMPREHENSION AS HE ASKS YET AGAIN .........”BUH ,BUH WHY IS MURDER WRONG “





    My reply (54th ) Children as young as 4 understand this concept where I’m from why can’t you?

    Atheists mostly follow the Golden Rule 

    Murder is wrong because as an atheist I treat  others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. 

    Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.  

    Murder deprives another of the life they are entitled too.

    This explanation totally stuns ETHANG as he wishes to know how an atheist can reach these decisions without praying or consulting a Bible 


    ETHANGS REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS HE SAID “I’M NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS PLACE IS “? 


    Ethang said god “invented “the Golden Rule he refuses to explain this merely answering “ because I said so “


    Ethang doesn’t know what objective morality as he refuses to define it


    Ethang says he doesn’t know what morality is without praying to god or reading the Bible for guidance , he refuses to define it 


    Ethang said there is a god because he said so he refuses to explain why


    Ethang said there are no other gods that’s stoopid  Ethang refuses to says why 


    Ethang said “ slavery, rape and infanticide were not in the Bible anyone that thinks so is stoopid  “ a real Christian dbox disagrees with Ethangs “assessment “ 


    Ethang said nothing is in the Bible unless he says so 


    Ethang said Atheists cannot be moral because they don’t pray or consult the Bible Ethang said this is because he says so









  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    edited March 5
    @ethang5

    Furious “Christian “Ethang states...... (yeshuabought even accused you of trolling)

    Mild mannered Atheist hero kindly replies ......So a Bible bashing, bisexual,  tribal belly dancer with PTSD Is passing judgement on me for kindly correcting you .....Ok , thanks man reallly appreciate that 
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @Dee

    You're double posting again. Your stalking will be more obvious if you double post for no reason.

    Couldn't you use your sockpuppet Joseph instead?

    Atheist champeen. I wish I could call you more stupid than the usual atheist. But I can't.
    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @ethang5


    ETHANGS REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS HE SAID “I’M NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS PLACE IS “?


    Ethang said god “invented “the Golden Rule he refuses to explain this merely answering “ because I said so “


    Ethang doesn’t know what objective morality as he refuses to define it


    Ethang says he doesn’t know what morality is without praying to god or reading the Bible for guidance , he refuses to define it 


    Ethang said there is a god because he said so he refuses to explain why


    Ethang said there are no other gods that’s stoopid  Ethang refuses to says why 


    Ethang said “ slavery, rape and infanticide were not in the Bible anyone that thinks so is stoopid  “ a real Christian dbox disagrees with Ethangs “assessment “ 


    Ethang said nothing is in the Bible unless he says so 


    Ethang said Atheists cannot be moral because they don’t pray or consult the Bible Ethang said this is because he says so



  • searsear 101 Pts
    "Ethang said Atheists cannot be moral because they don’t pray or consult the Bible Ethang said this is because he says so" D

    Is prayer thought? Or conduct?

    I thought morality was determined by behavior, not belief.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @sear

    You're also not to take a liar's account on face value.

    Ask him to cite the quote and you will see why liars lie.

    Hint: some people will believe the lie without question.
  • DeeDee 234 Pts



    The hypocrite Ethang states ....You're also not to take a liar's account on face value.

    Ask him to cite the quote and you will see why liars lie.

    Hint: some people will believe the lie without question.


    My reply ....Out of the many lies you’ve told now one only has to look at you every posting where you attack rabidly  absolutely everyone for merely asking you to answer a few simple, grow up you sulking child 


  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @Dee

    Hey liar, 

    We notice you didn't cite any of your "Ethan saids".

    You're probably an SJW who believes he's doing the board a favor by being a liar and a troll.

    Now you're locked into being a moron and don't know how to stop.

    It's always so funny when I beat you dolts.

    But already, you've laid off the spam a little. Did you get tired?

    I'm here for you DeeDee. I was made for trolls like you. Troll whisperer is what they call me.

    I just wish you'd bring out your sock puppet Joseph sometime. He's fun too.
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @ethang5


    THE FURIOUS AND DELUSIONAL VICIOUS “CHRISTIAN “TROLL ETHANG HAS ASKED THE SAME QUESTION REPEATEDLY NOW 58 TIMES I’VE EXPLAINED PATIENTLY 58

    TIMES 


    HERE IS THE FURIOUS VICIOUS TROLL ETHANG BEING TOLD YET AGAIN .....WATCH HIS STUNNED INCOMPREHENSION AS HE ASKS YET AGAIN .........”BUH ,BUH WHY IS MURDER WRONG , YOUR ANSWER CANNOT BE RIGHT CAUSE I SAID SO “




    My reply (54th ) Children as young as 4 understand this concept where I’m from why can’t you?

    Atheists mostly follow the Golden Rule 

    Murder is wrong because as an atheist I treat  others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. 

    Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.  

    Murder deprives another of the life they are entitled too.

    This explanation totally stuns ETHANG as he wishes to know how an atheist can reach these decisions without praying or consulting a Bible 


    ETHANGS REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS HE SAID “I’M NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS PLACE IS “?


    Ethang said god “invented “the Golden Rule he refuses to explain this merely answering “ because I said so “


    Ethang doesn’t know what objective morality as he refuses to define it


    Ethang says he doesn’t know what morality is without praying to god or reading the Bible for guidance , he refuses to define it 


    Ethang said there is a god because he said so he refuses to explain why


    Ethang said there are no other gods that’s stoopid  Ethang refuses to says why 


    Ethang said “ slavery, rape and infanticide were not in the Bible anyone that thinks so is stoopid  “ a real Christian dbox disagrees with Ethangs “assessment “ 


    Ethang said nothing is in the Bible unless he says so 


    Ethang said Atheists cannot be moral because they don’t pray or consult the Bible Ethang said this is because he says so




  • DeeDee 234 Pts

    @ethang5

    THE FURIOUS AND DELUSIONAL VICIOUS “CHRISTIAN “TROLL ETHANG HAS ASKED THE SAME QUESTION REPEATEDLY NOW 58 TIMES I’VE EXPLAINED PATIENTLY 58

    TIMES 


    HERE IS THE FURIOUS VICIOUS TROLL ETHANG BEING TOLD YET AGAIN .....WATCH HIS STUNNED INCOMPREHENSION AS HE ASKS YET AGAIN .........”BUH ,BUH WHY IS MURDER WRONG , YOUR ANSWER CANNOT BE RIGHT CAUSE I SAID SO “




    My reply (54th ) Children as young as 4 understand this concept where I’m from why can’t you?

    Atheists mostly follow the Golden Rule 

    Murder is wrong because as an atheist I treat  others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. 

    Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.  

    Murder deprives another of the life they are entitled too.

    This explanation totally stuns ETHANG as he wishes to know how an atheist can reach these decisions without praying or consulting a Bible 


    ETHANGS REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS HE SAID “I’M NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS PLACE IS “?


    Ethang said god “invented “the Golden Rule he refuses to explain this merely answering “ because I said so “


    Ethang doesn’t know what objective morality as he refuses to define it


    Ethang says he doesn’t know what morality is without praying to god or reading the Bible for guidance , he refuses to define it 


    Ethang said there is a god because he said so he refuses to explain why


    Ethang said there are no other gods that’s stoopid  Ethang refuses to says why 


    Ethang said “ slavery, rape and infanticide were not in the Bible anyone that thinks so is stoopid  “ a real Christian dbox disagrees with Ethangs “assessment “ 


    Ethang said nothing is in the Bible unless he says so 


    Ethang said Atheists cannot be moral because they don’t pray or consult the Bible Ethang said this is because he says so


  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @Dee

    Hi deedee.

    There still seems to be something wrong with your iPad. Those big spaces between your paragraphs are still there. Just like in Joseph's posts. 

    Coincidence huh?

    You're still spamming huh? OK. To each his own, though why you think posting the same thing over and over to multiple threads will help you is a mystery.

    When the mods ask I'm sure you will have a valid reason for spamming. None of my beeswax as they say.

    Since you've admitted that you don't know why depriving someone of their right to life is immoral, I've decided to tell you.

    But not while you're spamming and posting false quotes all over the board. I'll wait for you. If you aren't banned, we'll talk. I'm not going anywhere.

    But check out that iPad problem. Since Joseph has the same problem, maybe he could help you. Lol.

    Stay civil now.
  • JoesephJoeseph 553 Pts
    edited March 8
    @ethang

    This guy persists in attacking others Aarong  here is another example also check out his attacks on other members, the guy is a bully and needs to be removed
    Zombieguy1987Dee
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @Joeseph

    I see when Dee quit, Joseph stepped in. Which one of you is the account and which is the sock?

    This is a debate site, you beat your opponent using reason and logic. You don't run to the mods when you can't debate cogently.

    But please tell your sock master, if he is through spamming, I am ready to tell him why murder is immoral.
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @Joeseph

    Well said J, I don’t have to see his totally irrational postings  anymore I have him on mute , I see you’ve done the same , several others have muted him also he’s just a bridge too far. I blocked him when he started using racist terms and issuing threats of violence he needs help
    Joeseph
  • JoesephJoeseph 553 Pts
    @Dee

    Wow ,that's pretty heavy sounds like someone on the edge ....The mute button works beautifully enabling you to debate with people that can actually debate .....talk soon buddy 
    Deeethang5
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    Lol, 

    The genius "talks" to his sock puppet. You and your sock putting me on mute is not several people DeeDee.

    Told you I would outlast you. The fake quotes, the repetition, the lies, (like your several people put him on mute lie) what was it all for?

    You didn't win, you didn't come off as smart. You didn't last.

    The reason you stopped is because the mod warned you. Most readers can figure that out.

    Now if zombieguy is a real person and not just the 3rd in your puppet theater, we will look to cool him down next.

    "talk soon buddy"

    Lol!!
  • DeeDee 234 Pts
    @Joeseph

    The worst thing about people like this is they always go the same way after getting beaten in debate , several friends on here advised me to do as they did and block him he’s received several warnings off mods.

    The racist remarks on top of the bigotry by people like this should be stamped out on all sites.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @Dee

    The mod you tried to manipulate saw our posts and warned you.

    Now you're trying again by calling me racist. We will see if that will work.

    And the phrase, "people like this...." Is usually reserved for bigots.
  • mickygmickyg 24 Pts
    jesus said all the LAWS apply forever..he also said this...

    15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death @YeshuaBought
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| 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!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch