- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
This is a very vague question. Do you mean should ALL animals be held in captivity? I don't think anyone thinks that.
Do I think that some animals should be kept in captivity? I suppose it depends on the circumstances. For example, I don't see anything wrong with having a tiger or a panda in a zoo, provided it's treated humanely and there are no damaging effects on the animal or the environment. It allows the general public to get up close to animals they otherwise would never see in their lifetime, learn about them, etc.
Loving thy neighbour is neither violent nor hateful. I would almost argue that Christ declared the Old testament obsolete when He stated that He hadn't come to revoke the old laws, but fulfill them (acknowledging they had their purpose, and are now irrelevant).
Almost all critics of Christianity and Islam take the texts wholly out of context when quoting the scripture. I can't imagine anyone would seriously think that the Bible expects us to follow the same specific laws that the Israelites needed to follow in order to survive their time in the desert - most of them were political, not moral.
No, because they stand for totally different things. When you compare any group to Nazis of the KKK or whatever using any terms, even if you're just talking about popularity, you immediately imply that the two are a like - when strictly speaking you aren't. The Tea Party would actually have to be a racist movement for it to be even remotely comparable to the KKK.
No it was the secular wing of christians in the north whom dissaproved of slavery (they were still pretty racist however), it was the more deeply religous christians of the south who took the bible at its core that believed slavery was justified.
Pick one and only one. The Northern abolitionists were pretty darn religious.
Btw, many of the slaves. Were starved to death on their way over here by slave ships
They were taken against their will and were mistreated. The bible outright condemns this. Enslavement =/= slavery.
Im not saying they should've starved to death, but living in a hell like that isnt a much nicer alternative
Again, you need to learn more about slavery as an institution. The slaves during bible times and under the Roman empire were different from the US and Europe.
Thats the exact same arguments made by slave owners (most deeply religous christians btw) to justify the ownership of other human beings, along the lines of "we shelter them, feed them, and teach them hard work."
Which slave-owners, the ones who purchased slaves who sold themselves voluntarily to pay off a debt or the slave owners who took part in the trans-Atlantic slave trade (a practice that went against biblical principles)? The abolitionist movement (most deeply religious christians) argued that the slavery that was being practiced in Europe and the US was not the same as under the Roman empire and in the Middle east - and rightfully so, they were completely different!
I think it's disgusting that you'd have been prepared to let people starve to death for the sake of an ideal. If someone wanted to sell themselves in exchange for an agreed upon item or service, it's their choice! Fortunately the bible encourages helping people so that they will not need to, but it would take one sick f* to have abolished slavery back then.