I agree. That was part of the whole point of the New Testament, and what the physical miracles Jesus did were symbolic of. Changing the human heart to be blameless before men in such a way that it was proof.
I agree Christian's need to actually be "little Christ's" more and really don't apply what they preach alot. 1st Century church Apostle Paul addressed this.
1 Corinthians 15:34 KJV
Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
I'm guessing you believe in old earth creationism? Why do you believe it, and how would you prove God to an unbeliever?
What would you call substantial proof? What would convince you that God exists?
Why do you say you know Christianity is not true? Just seeing how you think.
Except it wasn't just decomposing bodies and it wasn't just "avoid them" and slight aversion. During the Middle Ages when the Black Plague happened people had NO CONCEPT of disease control and because of this people thought sickness was caused by an unbalance of "humors" or quadrants you can think of. Later a singular doctor had an idea of disease "jumping" but he still had no idea how disease worked because he started the famous Plague Doctor suit with the beak. Which he would wear EVERYWHERE and carry the disease with him, spreading it along with whatever doctors believed his theory and used his suit.
With that being said the Mosiac Law came 2000+ years before the Black Plague and is the first ever recorded use of the quarantine. Ever. And the wording used isn't "yeah you should probably do this if you want". No it was "we are all going to die if you don't do this". There's also alot more than just avoiding dead bodies and obvious disease, you should actually read it sometime.
Anyways my point is NOT that there's irrefutable evidence of God, my point is outright saying there is 0% chance of an existential power existing is just not true and intellectually dishonest and actually a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).
You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence.
For "backwards fuckwits from 4000 years ago" they seem to have some pretty comprehensive understanding of disease control, more so than any other nation at the time. Like separating people from the camp when they were sick, washing when someone touched something dead or diseased. Pretty good considering hand washing wasn't even a thing till the 1800's. Almost like a transcendent being with advanced knowledge on the subject gave it to them.
Thank you for ignoring the important paragraph:
Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.
The trinity is, as the religious claim, indivisible. So
You argument relies on false premise. It's forcing a view that the religious do not have, unless you are limiting your view to the Unitarian view, which is not the representative majority of Christianity. Your view of the Trinity is that they do not share separate person in anyway. Separateis the important part of the trinity that is partly but not entirely explained in the above paragraph.
Makes no sense.
Thank you for stating this again without explaining why this makes no sense.
I've read all your arguments. If someone brings up a real point your argument reduces to name-calling.
If God paid the price for our sins, then whom did he pay it to?
I guess you're operating based on the assumption the Trinity doesn't exist with this one? Meaning either God had to pay to a higher power or He is irrational? I would adknowledge your argument if the Trinity wasn't evident throughout Scripture but it is.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one, this is known as the trinity. The three in one. Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.
With the Trinity, God the Son pays the price set by God the Father and meets the requirement He Himself set.
I believe this is under the fallicy of "false premise". How was Jesus conquering death rebellion against God? Have you ever read the Bible? Like ever? Christ's death was the Father's will, that's the entire point of His prayer in the garden. Christ's "conquering death" was fullfilling the payment for sin, which is death. Since Jesus is of infinite worth because He is God, he can pay an infinite payment for an infinite amount of people. It's not going against God's will, it's actually God will.
I've done research on it, I'm just giving a non-descript version of it. Still not really concerning to present day Christians since we'll be raptured
No, not really. The Muslim Messiah is very similar to the Christian Anti-Christ and so it doesn't really surprise me Islam is going to create a Beast to destroy Christians, similar to the Beast in the Book of Revelation. Both the antichrist and the Beast are defeated in the Book of Revelation, and Christians will be raptured before the Beast anyways.
Easter does not celebrate the death of Christ but the Resurrection which happened after the Passover. Passover starts this Monday, Jesus dies on Friday, and is then resurrected three days later on Sunday (Easter). If Jesus would have simply died then it would have meant nothing.
1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Tis a joke, there was no real logical argument. I can't take debates like this seriously
Cats are either evil or dumb and have no purpose. That is all. No false assumptions here. Am I kidding or not? That's for you to decide. But if you decide cats aren't dumb, you're dumb. No ad hominem here.
Most eastern religions believe sex between two people who love each other (in any way, married or non, hetero or homo, monogamous or polygamous) as moral and polygamy is supported. Eastern religions were very much like Native Americans in their sexual standards, who were very loose with their sexual standards.
Unless you're talking about the middle east and Islam...which piggy backs off the Judeo - Christian faith.
Milo wishes he wasn't gay because he believes its morally wrong and detrimental to society but doesn't think it's mental disorder, which is sorta what I believe as well. It's more nurture than nature.
There is no correlation to religiosity and morality even according to you. That only demonstrates my point.
It's doesn't really prove anything as you said but it doesn't prove your point either. My point is that a CLAIM to religion does not mean a thing. But following the Judeo - Christian values does. For example, the most fought over Christian moral, sexual chastity, was proved by Joseph Unwin in Sex and Culture when he was able to prove sexual restraint and monogamy leads to the success of a society. This was later proved in the University of British Columbia. This is just one of many morals only the Judeo - Christian worldview really supports. You could say Islam but they really just piggy-backed off the Judeo - Christians.
Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.
Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?
You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.
1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.
2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.
This aside, morality is not dependent on religion. It's an arbitrary concept based on a person's values. But societies do tend to flourish when the society, as a whole, follows Judeo - Christian morals. Even the Bible addresses this point. The God of the Bible always tells people to follow "HIS statutes" and "HIS commandments", but you can find times when God gave up the Israelites to other standards besides His own. And the people suffered for it. The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.
Already argued this in another debate so if you've already seen this, oops:
The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.
For example, criticts point out that God commanded the genocide of millions "just because they were in the promised land". However, if you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel later.
But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.
This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.
This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.
It depends on which line of argument you're using. If you're using the Bible as an authority then no.
You can view Satan as underdog that lost and is not truly evil, sorta like how those who won wrote the history books, but even this logic really doesn't follow.
The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.
If you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel.
But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.
This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.
This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.
First, .9 repeating isn't "essentially" 1 - it IS 1 - thus, there aren't two answers at all - only 1.
So there is only one answer. Thus was my point.
If one person says gay marriage should be illegal and another person says it should be legal - clearly those are not different expressions of "one answer".
Just because opinions differ does not mean the answer has multiple possible answers. For example, if homosexuality itself creates dysfunctional and in itself wrong, the question doesn't even arise. Should we kill a murderer or not and allow a possible escape? (alluding to the Joker) The answer is control yourself and don't commit murder in the first place ( the answer to the "One Bad Day" concept).
So, you think randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of large cohorts are less reliable than talking to a couple of friends? Have you read through the studies? The definitions of "bad behavior" is purposely ambiguous to allow researchers to confirm their own bias. The peer-reviewed studies are usually condemned both on the religious and non religious side. People you know and can communicate with are much more reliable because you KNOW them.
Maybe you don't have too many friends - because I know a lot of people (including myself) that are products of very dysfunctional heterosexual marriages... Congrads you're alive and can hold a job. But the point I care about goes past what researchers can see. Are you selfless to the point of fault in relationships? Can you handle and control your emotions in extremely stressful relationship situations (no way to present those in an controlled experiment) and seek out to be sacrificial for the other person? This is very personal and I'm not faulting you or assuming anything but I do have alot of friend that have come from dysfunctional homes and most have tendencies that cause harm to relationships. The relationships they hold may be able to survive, but I wouldn't say they'd be better off coming from the home they did. The "sins of the father" is a very real concept.
I am actually having a problem finding any that don't fit that description. How about killing people. Let's start with that.
There is a difference between senseless killing and justice. People cherry pick circumstances and verses to prove this argument. What they fail to remember is that God did not give the Israelite's their promised land till the sin of the current inhabitants of the land was past a certain point. The previous inhabitants of the land worshiped Moleck (spelling maybe wrong) and would ritually sacrifice children through burning and had sexual orgies with all genders that included animals which would lead to widespread STDs, not even mentioning the relationships problems. The Israelite's being used by God as judgment was not senseless as you portray it. Next example?
your argument that one answer is possible proves nothing if one answer is not only possible but how God decided morality then all other actions besides the one answer would be wrong and in turn morality would be objective
The Bible describes very well exactly what a subjective morality would look like. "Here are some rules to live by. Break those rules when I say to".
Which ones?
It isn't a strawman, it is called reading comprehension.
See above
You are begging the question. You are presupposing a single answer so that you can presuppose what that answer is so that you can presuppose the answer leads to God. You don't need to bother with the part where you tell us that there can be one answer. No one said there can't be one answer. The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. If there is only one answer then morality is objective.
