- 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
So you know its basically a legal cult
Since "legality" is the only thing that differentiates a cult from a religion, this is an oxymoron. It's a bit like saying it's dry water.
Also unaltered basically says that its pretty much the same as it was hundreds of years ago.
You'd have to be terribly ignorant of Catholic history and current events to believe this, which I get the strong impression you are. To start with, ever heard of Vatican II?
In the bronze age slavery and rape were okay. So if it is unaltered, that would mean those things or things like it would be okay too.
This is some of the most spurious reasoning I've ever read on this site, and there are a lot of incoherent retards around here. Do you even know what period the term "Bronze Age" refers to? Catholicism didn't exist in the Bronze Age.
so you're 11 is what you're saying
i'm actually really curious about how you lead your extra-ebate life. do you have a facebook? a blog? how do you interact with family members and classmates? do you have a mode of interaction other than "laughable tryhard condescension?" how have you managed to live longer than a decade acting this autistic? who is nummi
In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality,
How? If I were to contest abstractly that the quality of food is subjective, that shouldn't be taken as an invitation to talk about whether pizza is objectively the best food. You're confusing relation with relevance.
You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice"
I don't, actually; I'm baiting. I'm waiting for someone to object to what I'm calling just and tell me why it isn't, in which I might evaluate their reasoning and decide whether I agree with them. The reason I start discussions isn't out of great conviction that mine is the correct position, but for the purpose of seeing the merits of different viewpoints laid out by their believers. I'm about as unsure of this as I am of anything, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.
Who did you root for in the Superbowl?
no, i actually make every effort to be as receptive to substantial criticism as possible, and to reevaluate any stance or view i'm given cause to. blindness to constructive criticism is probably my biggest pet peeve! h/e like i said that shit has to be qualified, and with your determination to demonstrate irreverence + prejudice at every opportunity your opinions are p well qualified as "worthless"
tbf dude your evaluations of my intelligence don't much concern me. usually, you respect somebody's opinion on something because they have clearly demonstrated their authority on that subject. taking your word on who's smart and who's not would be a little like asking dan brown for writing advice.
In His image, not in His identity. The Bible (assuming the Biblical God is the one you're talking about) is emphatic that humans are flawed in contrast to Him. Perfection entails supreme power, and supreme power entails the ability to do anything that isn't impossible. Analogue to a skilled author: can a good writer write well exclusively? Or can he choose to write like Stephanie Meyer if he wants to?
If God "equals" truth, you have to throw out whatever definition of it you used to arrive at the conclusion that it "doesn't exist, has no real evidence of existing, is imaginary and does not even attempt to derive itself from scientific, natural or physical law." You can make arguments that for truth to be anything other than truth is incoherent or unnecessary, but you're kind of missing the point here.
You talk as though it's impossible to be educated about religion and something else. Theology is often called the master of all studies, as it's necessary to have at least a passing familiarity with most disciplines to have a robust understanding of it. I have to say, personally, that I've met more ignorant Atheists than ignorant religious. This website's preponderance of nigh-illiterates cursing God and hoping to provoke someone is abounding evidence that Atheism and ignorance are not mutually exclusive.
It's definitely not a cult, legally (which is the only thing that differentiates a cult from a religion). To say it's "off" Christianity, apart from being grammatically incomprehensible, is just historically incorrect. Protestantism was formed in protest of the corruption of Catholicism, which as a Christian denomination is about the most unaltered since its conception (with the possible exception of Greek orthodoxy).
Did I ask for your opinion?
Haha, no, but this is a debate website, silly. It's kind of implied that you want someone to respond to you. :)
Everyone's so eager to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy these days, as if that had any bearing on the truth of a single belief.
Even granting that failure to practice what you preach is an essential character flaw (ignoring that fact that it's pretty much universal and that calling attention to character flaws in place of an argument, no matter how significant, is literally the definition of ad hominem), it's impossible to know whether someone is a hypocrite without intimate knowledge of the bases of their belief. You can't just look at two opinions and say "that's contradictory." An infantryman could be a vegan and you wouldn't know whether he was a hypocrite unless it was certain that, for example, his vegetarianism was an expression of extreme pacifism and not just a health concern, and his participation in aggressive military action was disregard of that. And even then, you and he could quibble about what constitutes hypocrisy for ages and ages.
Failure to practice what you preach is dependent on what it is you're actually preaching, and the vast majority of people's opinions can't be boiled down to "THIS AND ONLY THIS FOR ALWAYS" no matter how much you'd like to belittle them.