- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The way it is phrased does not imply that it is fraud (and there are other commandments against that), just that God does not allow it for the people of Israel.
10) There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.
Yeah - I had started typing a longer response, but saw the verse and jumped on it; as soon as I hit submit I saw that it was at the very least ambiguous. In the Bible, disease is often attributed to demons, sin, or just to prove God can, etc - with no mention of bacteria or germs, etc. It took until the 1500's to get even the basics of germ theory, and once we had it, we were able to live far healthier lives - so many (if not all) attributions to supernatural causes were due to ignorance. I think this probably supports what you are saying about ALL vs SOME, but now we need evidence for the SOME.
No actual magic is necessary for 'witchcraft' to be perceived as a problem
I think that is a valid argument regarding the verses that say people should not consult mediums, etc., but not against the verses that say a person should not be a medium, etc.
This implies that the bible assumes that ALL infirmities are caused by demons
"And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.""
Your earlier post said that when HW Bush did an executive action (for over 1.5 million immigrants), "[h]e was acting upon the same bill" - why is Obama not 'acting upon the same bill' as well?
Also, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill which has majority support in the House, but has been blocked from coming to the floor for a vote - so there is majority support for much broader action than what Obama is doing with this Order.
I think you are both getting at a nuance with something that is "unpredictable" - it could be that it is not predictable with our current knowledge or impossible to predict even if we had all of the possible related information (which I think is daver's question)
"Ok" is probably a bit too vague - ok morally, ok legally, or ?
I think it should be legal in basically every case.
And morally "ok" in the same instances as when killing others would be ok, namely mercy killing (painfull, terminal malady) and self-defense (very broad range).
Most specifically I was referring to a meeting that took place on Obama's first day as President between Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Jon Kyl, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Pete Sessions, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz where the Republicans decided their plan would be to "challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." Along with the evidence that they are sticking to that plan (least productive Congress, most filibusters, blocking policies they used to support, etc.)
Though my comment would also apply to anyone who has made up their mind and would not be open to evaluating contrary information.
Here is a link to the source press report.
As Jace mentions, it is not an actual study and it's full methodology is unknown, but also worth mentioning is that many divorces had multiple factors.
Additionally, it seems like it could only be directed at trying to substantiate your claim that "It ruins relationships.", not the other claims.
Moreover, "Excessive time on computer" was an influence on 47% of divorces in the same survey - should we ban computers altogether?
And "many in congress" support the provisions in Obama's Executive Order as well.
The Reagan/Bush changes affected roughly the same percentage of undocumented immigrants which existed at the time. The only difference being the raw numbers.
the major differences between them
Are there differences besides the number of immigrants affected?
Better explanation exists
Evolution has produced several species with (and without) a tendency to perform actions we consider moral, and better explains our drive toward cooperative competition than the Bible.
(I’d prefer this to be about evolution’s impact on what is perceived as moral rather than a debate about whether evolution exists, but it seems unfair to restrict it – perhaps we can use an existing evolution debate.)
Inability to answer moral questions
The objectively moral action to take is inaccessible to us. If you put several extremely pious people in separate rooms with a list of moral dilemmas – they will come to disparate conclusions based on varied (subjective) reasoning. The existence of this site is evidence that moral questions still exist that have no objective answer.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement