CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Most of these are from the old testament, which doesn't apply to us anymore, and almost nothing in the text beside the pictures is still applicable either.
What does it matter if it's from the old testament or the new, I seriously believe it to be hypocritical to claim not needing to follow it because it's older.
What does it matter if it's from the old testament or the new
Because after Jesus came, in the new testament, he made many new commandments, and now those apply. I am not going to go into details if possible, because i didn't acquire this knowledge in a day, and it will take very long to explain. If you want to know, you should go to church.
I seriously believe it to be hypocritical to claim not needing to follow it because it's older.
What matters is the fact that God made the damn laws in the first place and they contradict his Omnibenevolence.
God is a timeless being, and his morals don't change over time if he is omnibenevolent.
As I've said before, he can't go on unjustly murdering children and then decide to recap on his bad decisions when his morals are supposed to be perfectly lodged in place with omnibenevolency. (Omnibenevolency meaning having infinite or ultimate morality and righteousness)
(And once again, a swear word for a child's life is not justice.)
Its not simply stated. Jesus made many different new laws that now apply that replaced the old ones. I have gained this knowledge from years of church going. You all would probably know this too if you went.
Have you even asked why they were existent in the first place before Jesus came into the picture? What went through God's supposedly "omnibenevolent" mind when he first came up with this?
Don't forget the murder of children (ordered by God) just because they cursed at their parents.
Have you even asked why they were existent in the first place before Jesus came into the picture? What went through God's supposedly "omnibenevolent" mind when he first came up with this?
Omnibenevolent, but don't forget just too. He is just and will allow no sin to go unpunished.
Don't forget the murder of children (ordered by God) just because they cursed at their parents.
Do you realize you are helping me? After Jesus came, he set up new laws. God also ordered the death of adulterers, but when the pharisees tried to stone one, Jesus instead offered her forgiveness. And because he died, he is now our salvation and because of his death God now withholds his wrath from us until the appointed time.
Omnibenevolent, but don't forget just too. He is just and will allow no sin to go unpunished.
So it was a sin to shave your hair?
So it was a sin to wear clothing of multiple material?
So it was a sin to eat shrimp, or other aquatic creatures that didn't resemble fish?
So it was a sin (PUNISHABLE BY DEATH) to simply swear towards your parents.
That is not even justice!
-
-
-
Do you realize you are helping me? After Jesus came, he set up new laws. God also ordered the death of adulterers, but when the pharisees tried to stone one, Jesus instead offered her forgiveness. And because he died, he is now our salvation and because of his death God now withholds his wrath from us until the appointed time.
This is not helping you. This is just highlighting your irrationality.
Just because Jesus came, it does not cancel out the fact that he implemented those laws IN THE FIRST PLACE to murder those children who cursed at their parents!
And what do you mean by justice? There is no hell? So Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and others who killed millions, along with serial killers and rapists, will go to heaven and live in happiness for eternity? Wow, you have some sense of justice.
This is not helping you. This is just highlighting your irrationality.
Wow. Nice unjustified assertion.
Just because Jesus came, it does not cancel out the fact that he implemented those laws IN THE FIRST PLACE to murder those children who cursed at their parents!
Who said it canceled anything out? The debate was that Christians accept all this in the Bible, not what JewsUSED TO accept. The children sinned, and sin must be punished. You might think death is too harsh a consequence, and i wouldn't kill someone for cursing either. But this is what the law was then, and who is to say this is too harsh a consequence? You are just saying what you think? According to Christianity it is not, because God is the one who said to do it. And according to Atheism, aren't we all just evolved from chemical soup? We have no souls, so whats wrong with killing evolved chemical soup? God says it is wrong to kill because we are made in his image and likeness. But to atheists, why is killing wrong? To atheists, there is no God. So why is killing wrong? What is wrong to you? Whatever you think is bad according to your morals? There is no morality without God. Only a bunch of man made rules. If a human just made them up, why cant we all just make up our own rules? So to atheists, isnt wrong just common perception of something?
And what do you mean by justice? There is no hell? So Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and others who killed millions, along with serial killers and rapists, will go to heaven and live in happiness for eternity? Wow, you have some sense of justice.
Atheists don't believe in heaven or hell.
Who said it canceled anything out? The debate was that Christians accept all this in the Bible, not what Jews USED TO accept.
This is in the bible, commanded by GOD.
The only reason we aren't mass murdering children is because of Jesus.
But then God isn't really omnibenevolent then.
But this is what the law was then, and who is to say this is too harsh a consequence? You are just saying what you think?
Unjustified!
God's morals never change! He is a timeless being!
Justice is like an eye for an eye,
A swear word for a child's life is DEFINITELY not Justice!
Do I have to give you the definition of omnibenevolence?
God can't just go on murdering children and then think that it was a wrong thing to do in the future- you need to understand what omnibenevolence means!
And according to Atheism, aren't we all just evolved from chemical soup? We have no souls, so whats wrong with killing evolved chemical soup? God says it is wrong to kill because we are made in his image and likeness. But to atheists, why is killing wrong? To atheists, there is no God. So why is killing wrong? What is wrong to you? Whatever you think is bad according to your morals? There is no morality without God. Only a bunch of man made rules. If a human just made them up, why cant we all just make up our own rules? So to atheists, isnt wrong just common perception of something?
Dammit, you have such a weak Moral Compass. The Basis of Religious Morality was made from Human Morality. Atheists are the ones with real morality because we don't need a god's guidance to know what's right or wrong.
Humans have natural morality inside themselves.
Animals, such as apes and elephants are known to be compassionate- and they don't need Gods.
Is there any proof that heaven and hell exists? You're the one claiming that something exists after all, so you will need to provide the proof.
(Also, the audio footage taken from a 9 mile drilled hole in Siberia of "the screaming of the damned," is in fact already debunked as an elaborate hoax.)
Maybe you dont get it, but in atheism, there is no right or wrong, only a common perception of something.
But for some apparent reason, Atheist countries such as Sweden (85% Atheist population,) Norway, etc, are in fact the most livable places on Earth, (Norway sits at Number.1, most livable place on Earth,) and have considerably low crime rates.
That is a example of human morality, without the guidance or fear of a deity/god.
(Not to mention the fact that many species of animals have been known to act in a righteous, moral way.)
And it is this human morality that created the foundation of religious morality.
But sometimes, religious morality may be a little distorted, because, as I said earlier, murdering a child for vocalizing a "cuss" word to their parents is not moral at all, because we know how frequently children do it, and if the world did everything the bible says- we would be heaping mass murdering children.
Is there any proof that heaven and hell exists? You're the one claiming that something exists after all, so you will need to provide the proof.
Because i have no proof for it, and you have no proof against it, i have just as much reason to believe as you have to not believe. I would have to provide proof if i was trying to make you believe in it, but i am not, i am just making a point.
Also, the audio footage taken from a 9 mile drilled hole in Siberia of "the screaming of the damned," is in fact already debunked as an elaborate hoax.
Oh please no. I in no way believe that crap. And it wasn't even elaborate. No one had ANY reason to believe it. Atheists dont believe in hell in the first place, and most Christians believe hell is a spiritual realm unaccessable from earth.
But for some apparent reason, Atheist countries such as Sweden (85% Atheist population,) Norway, etc, are in fact the most livable places on Earth, (Norway sits at Number.1, most livable place on Earth,) and have considerably low crime rates.
That is a example of human morality, without the guidance or fear of a deity/god.
(Not to mention the fact that many species of animals have been known to act in a righteous, moral way.)
This has nothing to do with my argument. Who says what they are doing is right? Who says what right is? Exactly, humans. Although one human may say that something is right, if the MAJORITY says it is not right it is taken as so, just because they think so. Just like i said before there is no right or wrong, only a common perception of something.
we would be heaping mass murdering children.
No we wouldn't. Not anymore anyways, because after Jesus came, he told us to forgive.
i have just as much reason to believe as you have to not believe
This is simply not true. Unless one has no fact or logic to back a belief, there is no reason to hold said belief. There is NO EVIDENCE that hell exists. So why should anyone believe it does. Lack of belief is the only logical position. Active disbelief (i.e. saying hell doesn't exist) would require, evidence though.
Christians believe hell is a spiritual realm unaccessable from earth.
The bible states it is the land "below the waters." So...
Who says what they are doing is right? Who says what right is? Exactly, humans. Although one human may say that something is right, if the MAJORITY says it is not right it is taken as so, just because they think so. Just like i said before there is no right or wrong, only a common perception of something.
You could have simply said, "There is no objective morality" and saved a lot of typing.
Sadly for you, Christianity proposes the existence of an objective morality. You are holding beliefs contradictory to your religion.
This is simply not true. Unless one has no fact or logic to back a belief, there is no reason to hold said belief. There is NO EVIDENCE that hell exists. So why should anyone believe it does. Lack of belief is the only logical position. Active disbelief (i.e. saying hell doesn't exist) would require, evidence though.
There is no evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore you have no reason to be an atheist. If hell really is real then it would be unaccessable from earth, so we wouldnt know if it existed even if it did.
The bible states it is the land "below the waters." So...
Its being figurative.
You could have simply said, "There is no objective morality" and saved a lot of typing.
Yeah but i felt the need to explain a little more because he wasnt getting what i was saying.
Sadly for you, Christianity proposes the existence of an objective morality. You are holding beliefs contradictory to your religion.
If you read my previous arguments, you will see that i was looking from an atheistic point of view to ask him why he thought murder is wrong.
The ten commandments are in the old testament. I guess they no longer apply as well then? No? Let me guess..... you have a cleverly concocted excuse, right?
You do realize you are just repeating, in different words, what 4 other people have said before you, don't you? I'm not even going to take the time to rebut you.
Yep I as a Christian don't accept gay marriage because it is wrong in many different ways. But I am not going to explain why because I don't like to argue with people
The purpose of the site is to debate with people, if you come here just to throw out a worthless opinion without even attempting to back it up then this site will rapidly degenerate into a bunch of morons preaching their small minded ideology and blowing out senseless hot air in order to satisfy their pathetic craving to have those worthless opinions validated. The fact that this point has escaped you doesn't surpise me, that is, since I don't think I've ever seen you approach a topic with even a slightly open mind.
You don't really have to argue about it you should also be disgusted with the idea of same sex marriages doesn't that bother you seriously? If it doesn't explain in great detail to me.
"you should also be disgusted with the idea of same sex marriages"
I am disgusted with the notion of marriage in general, the fact that it could be a gay marriage means nothing to me. I don't care what people do to enjoy their lives.
"doesn't that bother you seriously"
No it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with it. An action is not wrong if it does not violate another's natural rights and/or goes against your own rational self interest. I'm sure your objections to it arise from your belief in the non-sensible so I expect a very lacking response.
Sorry for the delayed reply, this never appeared on my argument activity page.
"Share with me some of those notions you are talking about."
I simply don't see marriage as neccesary for a relationship to be meaningful and see the process itself as unnecessary. Also due to personal experience with the uselessness of it all.
"Also before I became a Christian it still made me sick so you can found another excuse."
Religion is not the only form of non-sensible, any prejudice(forcefull or otherwise) is born of non-sensible thoughts. Homosexuality as genetic and choice transferring into bondage should disgust no one. Unless of course you're like me and hate irrational tradition.
No, that isn't what this site was created for, this is meant to be a social networking site, it's meant to be a debate site, so if someone doesn't want to get involed in debating they should be here, and telling to go away is not wrong, it's entirely correct (see my above response to your other statement).
It is probably true but really so what! Its their religion its their bible why do they have to change their mind on it? why don't gay people call their union something besides marriage and move on for f sake!
why don't gay people call their union something besides marriage and move on for f sake!
Why doesn't a country, that claims to support the freedom of religion, take out discriminating religious legislation from its laws, and stop violating peoples freedom? Why in hell is it their responsibility to 'move on', or to change the name of their union, it should be the other way round, those that care should have to change their practices.
I agree that the government should get out of marriage. the fact that they are in it is f*ing up the hole debate, in my opinion. From the perspective of a Christian (of whom i am not)it would be just as unfair to require that they (Christians) change the definition of marriage to something that their religion does not except in order to include a group of people that disagree with, right or wrong its hypocritical and I bet you wouldn't be for it if it was involving a different religion.
I'm curious about your view here. Is there any validity in the precedent set by history and tradition? The US is now to the point where gay marriage will certainly become reality soon. For good or bad. But for the entirety of our history as a nation and for virtually all of western history, marriage was between one man and one woman. Obviously, traditions can and have changed. But tradition as a base argument does have validity, does it not?
But tradition as a base argument does have validity, does it not?
No, it doesn't. Whether or not something is traditional has no bearing on whether something is true or false. For example, headhunting is a traditional of aboriginals such as the Shuar tribe in the Amazonian basin and the Naga tribes in India and Myanmar. Does it immediately entail that headhunting is moral?
I'm curious about your view here. Is there any validity in the precedent set by history and tradition?
No, not really. History is useful for informing us what works and what doesn't work. If history shows us that some practice doesn't work, then what sense does it make to continue that practice? Following tradition for the sake of following tradition isn't a good argument for much of anything. It's intellectual laziness.
"ollowing tradition for the sake of following tradition isn't a good argument for much of anything"
Maintaining traditional practices can maintain a culture, and its identity. Maintaining diversity of language and culture I beleive is highly desirable, I don't deny that certain practices should be removed if deemed unecessary, or if found not to accord with the prevailing morality of the day,but a argument can be made for following tradition for the sake of following tradition. I don't beleive in the whole notion of progress, I beleive in scientific advanced, but the human species is a still a wild species, we are nowhere near to overcoming our animal impulses.
A little biblical knowledge is a good thing. Every one of your examples of Christianity come from the old testament. The old testament was written specifically for the Jewish nation (Israel). Period...no exceptions. Virtually none of the examples can be found in the new testament, which was given to what we call Christians. And the founder of that 'religion', Jesus, was the first person of that ancient culture to elevate women to equality with men. Galatians 3:28..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The principles laid down by Jesus are consistently ignored by Christians and secular people alike, but those principals were both wise and ground breaking. As for the gay marriage thing, he addressed that also. While he never said "love the sinner and hate the sin" as some believe, he certainly lived that principal. With the woman caught in the act of adultery, He refused to condemn her but told her to stop sinning. (John 8:11) Same with the crippled man the He healed. (John 5:14) He never condoned the sin, but He never condemned the sinner. BY-the-way.......ALL of the 'rules' (and there are not many) in the new testament are addressed to believers. If you are not a Christian, they do not apply to you, no matter what Pat Robertson says.
It's interesting that you say this because it implies that it was once morally acceptable to force a rape victim to marry her Rapist. The reason I find this interesting is because the overwhelming majority of Christians reject moral relativity (that morals are relative to time and/or culture) and assert moral absolutism, which would mean that what was once immoral is always immoral and what was once moral is always moral. If God is morally perfect and does not change, and morals are based on the character of God then on what basis can a Christian say that "No, no no that was old Testament, it was okay for them to do that back then"?
It is abundantly clear to me this is merely a rationalization.
I won't even attempt to justify or explain the mind of God. Either you believe, or you do not. There are aspects of life that are a puzzle, regardless of what your foundational beliefs are. The atheist can not explain why such a huge percentage of mankind throughout history have looked for a 'God' to explain our existence. Are/were 90% (or whatever the number) of humans thru the ages so stupid or gullible? And the believer will never understand why God could not have devised a system where there is less horror in the world. I can accept that i do not have all of the answers, and am perplexed by some of the questions.
I agree with the "overwhelming majority of Christians" you mention, who believe in moral absolutism. I can not explain why God say 'yes here, and no there', but i can absolutely say that, if you read the bible, you will discover that the old testament laws were specifically addressed to Israel. Period. Jesus opened it up to all comers, and changed the rule book. That is a horrible way to put it, but you get the point.
No, not rationalism, but fact. When Jesus came on the scene, God fine tuned and dramatically changed the rules. Look up Matthew 22:40.
The atheist can not explain why such a huge percentage of mankind throughout history have looked for a 'God' to explain our existence. Are/were 90% (or whatever the number) of humans thru the ages so stupid or gullible?
Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
When Jesus came on the scene, God fine tuned and dramatically changed the rules. Look up Matthew 22:40.
I suggest Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”
I think it is very inaccurate to claim that atheists cannot explain why such a huge portion of people have looked up for a 'God'. It is very simple, and more basic than humans are stupid or gullible. When humans did not understand something, they came up with theories as to why something happened. It is safe to say that evolution is a fairly widely accepted among humans today. Before evolution, people could not explain where they came from, so they made something up. Ages ago, the only way to explain many scientific questions, was a higher power. That was the only reasonable answer, there wasn't enough knowledge at that time. There is a reason there are significantly more agnostics and atheists in the world today, and that is because there is no need to use the reason "because of God" anymore in order to explain the universe.
Bad news there. Romans 1:26-27: ".....the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly..." Primarily though, the new testament speaks to "fornication' which is commonly defined as sex outside of marriage (sorry...that is clearly a man and a woman). Please note, these admonitions are addressed to believers. God only asks us to toe his mark when we ask him to be the boss. All others, by scripture anyway, are free to act anyway they want.
It's kind of convenient for this particular Abrahamic religion that a New Testament made it into existence. If one actually takes time to pause and recognize that ALL gods are and have been fictional throughout history, it's not even a question!
Follow the institution of the family upriver to her headwaters and you'll hear God resolve: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (Gen. 2:18 NIV)
God created marriage. No government subcommittee envisioned it. No social organization developed it. Marriage was conceived and born in the mind of God. His phrase, "I will make..." suggests a plan. And the phrase: "I will make a helper suitable for him..." envisions a special partnership. For the woman to be described as a "helper" is anything but demeaning. The same word is used elsewhere (Ex. 18:4; Ps. 121: 1,2) to describe God. The wife, then, is a godlike presence for the man. Hebrew scholars interpret the phrase " a helper suitable" as meaning "exact correspondence." Marriage is a divine match-what one lacks, the other supplies. This was God's plan.
He gives Adam a task. "The man gave names to all the tame animals...But Adam did not find a helper that was right for him." (Gen.2:20 NCV)
The point of the animal parade is clear: no animal could offer what Adam needed. A special act of creation was necessary. So God created Eve. From the frame of man, God made woman. She was of equal value, born of the same father, but she was different. When Adam saw Eve, he knew he'd met his match-his perfect match. His, and mankind's, first spoken words trumpeted the harmony between man and woman. "Finally!" he declares, "Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh! Name her Woman for she was made from Man." (Gen. 2:23)