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.
Perhaps its a little strong but yes I think it does. At sometime in our lives we all take actions that ultimately cause some degree of suffering to others. This may be reporting a crime that sends someone to jailing or shooting someone in a war. For these actions we have rational justifications. If we did not have these justifications then the harmful act would be immoral.
To a Christian this is not the case. They merely need the word of God. They can deny rights to gay people, force woman to carry a foetus they don't want etc and they can do this for no logical reason. Even Christians that do not believe these two things will ultimately, as we all do, harm someone but it is impossible that they would have a rational justification because rationality does not exist in their sense of morality.
In response let me first say that your use or "rights" here is misplaced, marriage is not a right.
Secondly, we have morals taught to us by the bible and those morals are our justifications. Homosexual acts are sinful and abortion is murder, you literally said we are bad people because we don't let mothers murder their unwanted children...just let that sink in for a bit. The last bit of you argument is a blatant cheap shot, I'm going to be the bigger man and ignore it.
Secondly, we have morals taught to us by the bible and those morals are our justifications. Homosexual acts are sinful and abortion is murder,
The problem is that any justification for a harmful that is absolutely unquestionable is morally dubious. Merely saying that homosexuality is a an offence against God is not sufficient to justify causing suffering to homosexuals.
you literally said we are bad people because we don't let mothers murder their unwanted children...
I don't consider foetuses children (for the sake of this argument at least...) so no I didn't say that.
Homosexuality is dangerousness anal sex (the only avenue available to homosexual men) has a much higher chance of passing along STDs than does vaginal sex. Also it serves no purpose, heterosexual sex creates life and therefor serves a purpose beyond satisfying lust. Homosexual sex be it between two men or two women, dose not create life therefor it serves no purpose it is simply sex for the sake of lust and therefor a sin.
A fetus is a combination of two separate sets of human genes developing into a new single form, at 3 weeks into the first trimester the fetus has a heart beat meaning it is a live, it is a livening human and to remove it from the mother's womb too early with the intent to do so knowing that it will kill (yes I said kill) the fetus is the killing of a human being by another human being or his/her agent with intent. Ie murder... No actually it's worse than murder, the would be mother had to set up an appointment at the abortion clinic or at the very least walk in this implies that she was planning to do the act before and as she or her agent committed it, as such the charge is then elevated to the killing of a human being by another human being or his or her agent with malice of forethought. Ie First degree murder.
Marriage is a legally recognized right in the country you live in. More importantly, marriage is hardly the most important rights issue facing homosexuals in your country and abroad. Homosexuals still face basic rights violations in your country, and especially in others, from marriage up to the most fundamental right to life. Without exception, such rights violations are justified by religion; there is no legitimate non-religious argument against homosexuality.
While some STIs used to be higher among gay men this is not because homosexuality is actually dangerous, but because prejudice/discrimination against homosexuals actively denied the demographic access to basic sex education, safer sex resources, and other care services. Since homosexuality has become more socially accepted and legally protected, those services have become more available, and STI rates have plummeted.
Abortion
The question of when human life beings is entirely a matter of how one defines life, and is ultimately an inherently subjective matter of opinion. You argument must reduce to simple assertion of its validity, likely grounded in religion. Many legal abortion proponents experience this same dilemma, which is why I find the argument of start of life entirely pointless. Rather, as a proponent of legal abortions, I consider the facts and deduce therefrom which option is the more preferable.
The facts are thus: (1) making abortions illegal does not prevent most abortions, but instead places the mother at greater risk in addition to the fetus; (2) unwanted pregnancies are a symptom of systemic social problems such as poor sex education (driven by religion), poverty, etc. Anti-abortion laws are a band-aid that fails to address the problem sources of the symptom, while actually making the problem worse than it already was.
Morality
Your "morality" does not come from your Bible. Your Bible is only the excuse you give for holding beliefs uncritically, and for maintaining your ignorant prejudices under the guise of sanctity. Your comments are perfect examples of precisely the point OP was making.
Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, if you care to support that then find me where it says it is in the Constitution. Aside from that I don't know what other "violations" your referring to in my country. Hell in here in the U.S you get into more trouble for assaulting, denying service to, insulting, etc a gay person than you would if you did the same things to a straight person.
This still doesn't address the fact that homosexual sex searches no purpose. It creates no new life and thus contributes nothing to the species, it instead results in the waist of genetic material.
Abortion
As to how I define life. Well I go off of what medical professionals say which is if a person has a heartbeat they are alive. That's not religion that's medical science. Your argument may be based off weighing "facts" (of questionable validity) but mine is grounded in United States Criminal Law. And by U.S law abortion being a planed act to end a human life (a fetus older than 3 weeks old is medically alive) by another human or his/her agent. meets the following elements, the killing of a human being by another human being or his/her agent with malice of forethought, and is therefor first degree murder.
Morality
Christian morals are the result of God's teachings. We do not have prejudices we simply refuse to except that which is wrong as right. That which is unacceptable as acceptable, if I showed you a blue pen and told you it was red wouldn't you correct me and say that it is blue? There are rules in life, there are rules set by man, and rules that are set by man can be changed by man, and there are rules set by God, and rules set by God may only be changed by God. In order to stay out of prison one must obey the laws that are set by man, likewise to stay out of hell one must obey the laws set by God.
I have to say, I don't agree or disagree with your points, but it's refreshing to meet a supporter of Christianity that's can provide some evidence other than, "the bible says so"
And by evidence you mean what, exactly? All the debater has referenced are woeful misconceptions and misrepresentations of United States law. Plenty of Christians do that.
Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Not all rights are in the Constitution. They are still rights if the law says that they are, and both federal law and all state laws recognize a right to state recognized marriage for some portion of the population. At the point where there is an established right to marriage for any portion of the population, marriage becomes a legal right which is denied to any other portion of the population not receiving it.
Aside from that I don't know what other "violations" your referring to in my country. Hell in here in the U.S you get into more trouble for assaulting, denying service to, insulting, etc a gay person than you would if you did the same things to a straight person.
The existence of hate crime laws in no way precludes legal discrimination in private and public sectors against homosexuals. In a majority of states in the union you can be kicked out of your residence, fired from your job, refused legal parental status, refused access to equitable health insurance, etc. simply for being homosexual (source). It has also been roughly only a decade since basic, fundamental rights became protected in this country; this is very recent history for which religion is primarily if not exclusively responsible.
This still doesn't address the fact that homosexual sex searches no purpose. It creates no new life and thus contributes nothing to the species, it instead results in the waist of genetic material.
It does not address it because you had not yet raised it. Now that you have, allow me to point out the multitude of reasons why this argument is wrong:
[1] You conflate homosexuality as an identity with homosexuality as an act; a person can be homosexual and celibate and still be discriminated against legally.
[2] You presume that the only purpose to sex is procreation, but this is clearly not the case. Pleasure and intimacy are other express purposes to sex, and the only argument against their legitimacy is religious.
[3] Marital law does not extend rights to people due to procreation. If this were the case, then celibate, infertile, and otherwise childless heterosexual couples would not have their marriages recognized and protected by law, but they do.
[4] Even if marriage were a right inferred by procreative capacity and intention, this argument is an entirely illegitimate basis for other legal discrimination against homosexuals. Procreation is not a required standard for the conferment of rights.
[5] Scientific research indicates that homosexuality is at least partially a consequence of genetics, and indicates the ways in which homosexuality factors into the genetic success of the human (and other) species (source).
[6] Many homosexual women do reproduce, through in vitro fertilization or other methods. Thus, at least one member of the couple is a contributing member to the human gene pool in just as equal a capacity as heterosexual women who become similarly pregnant and enjoy the rights of heterosexuals often denied to homosexuals.
Abortion
As to how I define life. Well I go off of what medical professionals say which is if a person has a heartbeat they are alive. That's not religion that's medical science.
Cite me a single source that says there is medical consensus behind your assertion.
Your argument may be based off weighing "facts" (of questionable validity) [...]
My argument is premised upon logic, as well as what data is available on illegally obtained abortions (which are, by consequence of their illegality not reported). However, international comparative research indicates that there is no significant difference in abortion rates between countries with laws for and against abortion but that there are greater health risks associated with anti-abortion laws (source). Even when illegal many women do still seek abortions because their reasons for wanting one remain unchanged (source), and the majority of reasons being either related to unwanted pregnancy and/or financial in nature (source) indicates that a more successful policy for both women and fetuses would be to ameliorate for the variables actually prompting women to seek abortions. In contrast, you have not presented any counter-rationale or evidence disputing or disproving my analysis.
... but mine is grounded in United States Criminal Law. And by U.S law abortion being a planed act to end a human life (a fetus older than 3 weeks old is medically alive) by another human or his/her agent. meets the following elements, the killing of a human being by another human being or his/her agent with malice of forethought, and is therefor first degree murder.
No, it is not. Definition of "alive" aside, United States federal criminal law explicitly holds that abortion is a legal termination of the fetus and not murder. Much as United States federal criminal law creates exceptions for self defense, lethal use of force by a law enforcement officer, etc. ... abortion is an exemption to first degree murder (or any other type of murder or manslaughter). You cannot win this argument with law, no in the U.S. where the standard for life and the acceptability of abortion has already been legally codified against your argument.
Morality
Christian morals are the result of God's teachings. [...] likewise to stay out of hell one must obey the laws set by God.
There is no such thing as the singular "Christian morality", only a contradictory set of morals derived from the same religious text but divergent based upon sect. You are a Christian who believes homosexuality and abortion are sinful, but there are also Christians who believe the exact opposite and find their justifications within the same Bible you do.
If you believe that homosexuality and abortion are sins that should be punished by law, then you must also believe the following are sins enforceable by law: wearing mixed fibers, the murder of non-virginal pre-marital women, etc. If the Bible is truly the word of God and not the words of men pretending to be God (which you cannot prove), and if you truly derive your morality from the Bible and that alone, then you must adhere to everything literally. If you do not, then you are subjecting the Bible to your personal interpretations and thus your internal prejudices and biases. In fact, I would argue that as a human being it is inherently impossible for you not to introduce your own biases into your religious beliefs.
The difference with the pen example is that the pen and its color are objectively real and can be proven, whereas God cannot be. The difference between prison and hell, is that prison can be proven to exist whereas hell cannot be.
You do have prejudices because you elect to discriminate against homosexuals and others in spite of reason and fact, and purely upon the basis of your interpretation of a book you believe says something that you believe is the word of a God that you believe exists... and all the while you cannot prove yours is the true interpretation, let alone that the book is actually the word of God, let alone that God exists. You can retreat to "God said so!" when confronted about your prejudices, without ever having to actually be challenged in your feelings.
First of all rights aren't granted by the government so I don't care what state or federal laws say.
Secondly there are cases of bakers and wedding photographers being sued and even ordered by the courts to take on gay clientele despite there rights to religious freedom and their rights as business owners. I'm all for tolerance but some gays try to force others to accept their way of life.
1)I know homosexuality is an act. It's not a sin to be attracted to the same sex it's just a sin to act on said attraction.
2)Procreation is the only acceptable reason for sex.
3,4,5,6) marriage is a union between a man and a women a marriage between two men or two women is not marriage just like a skateboard is not a bicycle,
Okay so the medical definition for alive is to have life (a heartbeat would certainly be an indication of that) or to not be dead or inanimatehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/ medical/alive. A fetus still qualifies as it is neither dead nor inanimate.
Being that there are no records of illegal abortions the results of a "comparison" of the amounts of abortions done in country where it's legal and country's were it is illegal hardly seems reliable. Furthermore even if that were the case then it should simply be enforced more strictly and punished more severely, make the risk outweigh the reward. Additionally, proper sex education and stressing the importance of not being a slut will also go along way to solving the problem. as will not glamorizing sex as our society currently does.
I was drawing a parallel between the elements of an abortion and the elements of first degree murder to show how they matched up. I know abortion is legal here and I'm demonstrating why is shouldn't be. It's not even close to being the something as self defense, unless the mothers life is endangered by the pregnancy, and in that case I'm fine with it. But having an abortion as a form of birth control is not a justifiable reason and should be considered first degree murder as it meets all the elements.
And lastly to the topic of Christian morality, there is a singular set of Christian morals they are payed out plainly in the bible, those "Christians" that claim homosexuality and abortion are not sins are wrong and are misinterpreting the word of God
Aside from that the other "offenses" you mentioned wearing mixed fibers is no longer a sin because Jesus's coming in the New Testament fulfilled the scriptures we no longer are bound by ceremonial law, killing premarital non verganal women is indeed a sin in fact killing in general (except in self defense) is a sin. Further more the pen analogy was meant to show you why we do not see homosexuality as Norman or acceptable not why we believe god exists. And finally I don't need to prove a God exists that's why it's called faith, and I don't need to Prove the Bible is the word of God it simply is.
[A] First of all rights aren't granted by the government so I don't care what state or federal laws say.
(1) You first referenced the Constitution; now that your point is invalidated you claim legal rights are irrelevant. How convenient. Your silence is concession that there is a legal right to marriage, and by extension that this right is still denied to homosexuals in some parts of the country. You have lost the initial point of dispute.
(2) Yes, they are. Prove otherwise. The idea of a natural (or other) right may exist, but the right itself does not exist unless it is actualized.
[B]Secondly there are cases of bakers and wedding photographers being sued [...] some gays try to force others to accept their way of life.
(1) Would you also say that blacks were forcing their way of life upon business owners by opposing segregation? Discrimination suits do not force anyone to accept anything as "right"; they do force people not to harm others on the basis of that lack of acceptance towards someone's identity.
(2) You ignored my evidence regarding the discrimination targeted at homosexuals, and the relative lack of the protections you seem to think are so widespread. I take this as concession.
[C]I know homosexuality is an act. It's not a sin to be attracted to the same sex it's just a sin to act on said attraction.
(1) Prove it. Without your Bible. Otherwise you are justifying legal inequity on the basis of religion, which is expressly against the Constitution you initially referenced.
(2) You missed my point. Marriage as a right does not necessarily entail sexual intercourse, thus denying the right to marriage on this basis is fallible.
[D]Procreation is the only acceptable reason for sex.
(1) So you assert. Prove it. Without your Bible.
(2) You ignored my examples and analysis demonstrating the inconsistency of your argument in its frequent application. I take these as concession, and this point is now void.
(3) You ignored the research I cited, demonstrating the role of homosexuality as a biological phenomenon in species reproduction and fertility. I take this as concession.
[E] marriage is a union between a man and a women a marriage between two men or two women is not marriage just like a skateboard is not a bicycle,
(1) Prove it. Without your Bible. Marriage is both a religious practice and a legal right. Your religion did not invent marriage, and it has no monopoly over its meaning. Your religion has no legitimate bearing upon the law, and you have advanced no secular argument warranting your point.
[F]Okay so the medical definition for alive is to have life [...]. A fetus still qualifies as it is neither dead nor inanimate.
(1) Your argument is that a vague definition of "life" that could include multiple variables can be reduced to the single variable of a heartbeat... for no other reason than convenience to your argument.
(2) This is not proof of the medical consensus you claimed existed to support your view. I thus conclude that you lack this proof.
GBeing that there are no records of illegal abortions [...] glamorizing sex as our society currently does.
(1) This is a cheap response that does not address most of the evidence or analysis I presented. With respect to the single study you touched on, the reality is that this difficulty would not result in overreporting but underreporting of illegal abortion rates... meaning that per your reasoning the abortion rates in countries without legal abortions are likely higher than this research found.
(2) Prove it. Find any evidence at all that harsher anti-abortion laws will actually deter women from seeking illegal abortions. Otherwise, this is an empty assertion next to the unrefuted evidence I provided demonstrating the compelling motives driving abortion.
(3) I already observed that comprehensive sex education is one of many necessary steps to reducing unwanted pregnancy (and thus abortion). You have clearly side-stepped my point which is that anti-abortion laws are ineffective bandaids that fail to address the actual problems of which abortion is a symptom. You ignored this distinction, thus I consider it conceded.
HAnd lastly to the topic of Christian morality, there is a singular set of Christian morals they are payed out plainly in the bible, those "Christians" that claim homosexuality and abortion are not sins are wrong and are misinterpreting the word of God
(1) Why is your interpretation of the "word of God" superior to theirs? You cannot prove it. Period. Neither can they. No religious sect can... because the interpretation is inherently subjective. My point stands.
IAside from that the other "offenses" you mentioned [...] we no longer are bound by ceremonial law [...].
(1) How convenient. Your Bible became morally obsolete as society developed... so it rewrote itself. The alternative being that God changed his mind.
(2) My underlying point stands, that the Bible coalesces to defend the pre-existing views and dispositions of whomever is reading it. That is why you have so many sects, even though none of you can prove you are correct.
JI don't need to prove a God exists that's why it's called faith, and I don't need to Prove the Bible is the word of God it simply is.
(1) You do if you want to use God and the Bible as arguments in a debate.
(2) The matter of dispute is a matter of law. Your religious argument cannot stand on its own as a legitimate influence on the laws of a secular government.
Present a legally sound rationale for denying equal rights to homosexuals or demonstrating that homosexuals enjoy legal equality, as well as a legally sound rationale for anti-abortion laws, and an independent rationale for the validity of religious morality... or consider these points forfeit and anticipate my non-response.
There have already been numerous debates on why the Bible is immoral. You are delusional if you find nothing wrong with the Bible.
This is biased. Th bible, in its correct and atributal sense, is perfectly moral in it's relevance in time. During the time of it's writting everything mentioned is moral and was moral. Slavery occured normally and it wasn't much like the slavery that blacks had to endure, but most of the slavery in the bible was voluntary. It was a job that you could have when you had no means of production. The bible may not seem moral to you, but it isn't immoral. It's just no longer applicable in the modern day norms of society.
Ignore it? So you are going to be ignorant?
The last part of his argument was totes flawed, thus ignoring it was to be expected. It shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Th bible, in its correct and atributal sense, is perfectly moral in it's relevance in time. During the time of it's writting everything mentioned is moral and was moral.
Correct. The Bible was moral when it was first created, but is it now? No.
most of the slavery in the bible was voluntary
How do you know this? And if it was voluntary, isn't that contradicting the definition of slavery?
The bible may not seem moral to you, but it isn't immoral. It's just no longer applicable in the modern day norms of society.
The Bible is immoral and no longer applicable because people today aren't the savages that they were when the Bible was being created.
Correct. The Bible was moral when it was first created, but is it now? No.
Yes, it is. You are aware of the subjectivity of morals, right? Most of the things the bible says are morally enlightening. You seem to only focus on the negatives. Is this how you read history books too?
How do you know this? And if it was voluntary, isn't that contradicting the definition of slavery?
The bible even mentions it and a simple gloss in history would show you that people would voluntarily enter slavery.
Also show me a definition of slavery that requires it to be involuntary. Slavery is simply the ownershio of a human. This can be voluntary or involuntary.
The Bible is immoral and no longer applicable because people today aren't the savages that they were when the Bible was being created.
The bible is not immoral. It has morally enlightening things in it. Thus, saying it is an absolutely immoral book is illogical, try again.
Yes, it is. You are aware of the subjectivity of morals, right? Most of the things the bible says are morally enlightening. You seem to only focus on the negatives. Is this how you read history books too?
I read history books as something that tells me what happened in the past and how it applies today. Yes the Bible may have some "morally enlightening" things in it, but it also has some pretty bad stuff in it too. Also, Christians take the Bible literally (or they are supposed to anyway).
Can society afford to have people base their morals on a book constructed thousands of years ago? Especially when that book has atrocities in it?
The bible even mentions it
Do you have a source other than the Bible?
a simple gloss in history would show you that people would voluntarily enter slavery.
Omg, are you serious?! So you're saying that in the past, people have willingly entered slavery? There are so many things wrong with what you just said.
Also show me a definition of slavery that requires it to be involuntary.
From google web definition:
slave
/slāv/
noun
noun: slave; plural noun: slaves
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
synonyms: historicalserf, vassal, thrall; More
The key word is forced. They are not doing it voluntarily, they are being forced. Also, I doubt that anyone would go into slavery voluntarily.
I read history books as something that tells me what happened in the past and how it applies today. Yes the Bible may have some "morally enlightening" things in it, but it also has some pretty bad stuff in it too. Also, Christians take the Bible literally (or they are supposed to anyway).
Exactly. It has good and bad things. Most thigs in the bible are not literal. They are to be pondered upon for meaning. For example when Jesus said "I have food that you know nothing of" didnt mean that he had some unknown food.
Can society afford to have people base their morals on a book constructed thousands of years ago? Especially when that book has atrocities in it?
Yes, for it also has some of the most morally excellent things in it.
Do you have a source other than the Bible?
I did say "A simple gloss in history will show". Yet you divided my argument in hopes of being correct.
Omg, are you serious?! So you're saying that in the past, people have willingly entered slavery? There are so many things wrong with what you just said.
People will sell themselves to have basis necessities.
From google web definition: slave /slāv/noun noun: slave; plural noun: slaves a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. synonyms: historicalserf, vassal, thrall; More The key word is forced. They are not doing it voluntarily, they are being forced.
You didnt understand me, I said people can voluntarily enter slavery. You seem to lack understanding on this subject. You are submitting to be placed under the control of another voluntarily. Thats all you need to realize.
Marriage is not a right. Show me were it says it is. Show me in the US Constitution the amendment that affirms marriage as a right and don't worry I'll wait.
The Bible is the word of God there is no higher moral authority. I will also say before you bring it up because I know you will. that all that barbarism in the old estimate became unnecessary when Jesus came in fulfillment of the scriptures and saved man from sin. Because Jesus died on the cross so that all our sins may be forgiven.
Homosexual acts such as sex serves no purpose other than lust as it does not yield fruit as does heterosexual sex. To engage in intercourse for any purpose other than to create life is sinful. A fetus is a single person being formed by the joining of two separate genetic codes, at 3 weeks into the first trimester the fetus (baby,Child) has a heart beat meaning it is medically alive. For the "mother" to go into an abortion clinic (prior planning) and have the unborn child removed from her womb knowing that will kill (yes I said KILL) it perfectly fits the elements of a killing of a human being by another human being of his or her agent with malice of forethought. So I guess I was wrong abortion isn't murder...it first degree murder. (Puts on sun glasses) cope with the circumstances.
that is a perspective that should be posted in a different debate no it isn't its part of the point I'm making in this debate so in this debate it shall remain.
ignore it? So your going to be ignorant?
No I'm just not going to play childish name calling games.
Show me in the US Constitution the amendment that affirms marriage as a right and don't worry I'll wait.
I'm not talking about the US Constitution. What I am I talking about is that there is no valid reason to keep two individuals apart.
Think about it; would you stop your loving relationship with someone because a book, that was written by simple people thousands of years ago, says that your relationship is wrong? This is what gay couples have to deal with.
The Bible is the word of God there is no higher moral authority
Oh really? First of all, you have to prove that your "god" exists. Next, I would question as to why your "god" is the ultimate moral authority, especially considering the acts he/she does(flooded the whole Earth; killed millions of innocent. Sends people to hell simply because they were raised in a different religion. Will accept the worst scum of human into heaven [Hitler] as long as they repent once and believe. Supports slavery [Leviticus 25:44-46, Deut 20:10-15] and sexism [Genesis 3:16, Exodus 21:7-11, 1 corinthians 14:34]. Is a complete psychopath [Deuteronomy 28:15-68]).
Note: There is much more but I'm sure that the amount given is sufficient. Also, thanks to LittleMisFit for the original (and still undisputed) post with this information.
Homosexual acts such as sex serves no purpose other than lust as it does not yield fruit as does heterosexual sex. To engage in intercourse for any purpose other than to create life is sinful.
So we should ban all contraception and birth control as it does not "yield fruit"?
LOL.
Good luck with that. /sarcasm
No I'm just not going to play childish name calling games.
So in conclusion we can clearly see that Warrior is just as or almost as delusional as Lolzors or Srom; people who desperately cling to a dying, broken, ignorant, hateful religion.
1. Still waiting for proof that marriage is a right
2. Yes I would. All things that I have I have through the Grace of God. If it is Gods will that I should not love someone then may Gods will be done.
3. God does not owe you an explanation, he created all that exists, if some aspect of his creation displeases him then it is his to alter as he sees fit.
4. Sex done for any purpose other than that intended by God is an abomination.
5. Nice try but I still refuse to stoop to your level.
1. Still waiting for proof that marriage is a right
Sigh...
You do not need a slip of paper to know that marriage is a right. Using your logic, nobody has rights unless specifically stated in some constitution.
All things that I have I have through the Grace of God. If it is Gods will that I should not love someone then may Gods will be done.
Are you really this delusional? So let me get this straight, if the Bible said that 200 five year old children need to be sacrificed each year to your "god", you would do that?
Also, why aren't you killing people who work on Sunday or curse their parents? The Bible says that you should do that and the Bible is "God's Will".
God does not owe you an explanation
ROFL. Are you serious? Oh my gosh... I'm laughing so hard... literally... :D
Sex done for any purpose other than that intended by God is an abomination.
Well then there must be billions of abominations.
Nice try but I still refuse to stoop to your level.
You're seriously no better than a crazy Muslim you know that? Anyways... I am done with this argument... thanks for the lols though...
To a Christian this is not the case. They merely need the word of God
That is false since Christians are obligated to follow the laws of the land.
They can deny rights to gay people, force woman to carry a foetus they don't want etc and they can do this for no logical reason.
They cannot deny rights to gays since the law tells them to accept them and the bible tells them not to discriminate or judge others. So in what sense do Christians have the right to deny gay right?
They cannot force a woman to carry a child since the woman can simply go to an institution that will perform the operation for her. Christians do not monopolize the hospital industry and they must lend credence to the laws that allow it. They only have the right to state their opinion on it. Again, your examples are not fitting and are typical responses. They are biased.
n. Even Christians that do not believe these two things will ultimately, as we all do, harm someone but it is impossible that they would have a rational justification because rationality does not exist in their sense of morality.
Christians will have the same sense of morality as a non-believer, but you're just blaming them for traits you would expect them to have and for things found in the bible. For example, many people say Christians favor slavery since the Bible seems to nearly promote it, but in the biblical age this was acceptable and it was the norm. The bible has an ancient morality, and applying that to modern day Christians who already have to lend credence to laws is illogical. I would even go as far to say that God has done some unjustified acts. Does that mean that he cannot possess infinite love? People will judge Christians based on the attributes of the deity.
Your entire argument is based on assumption that were not clearly thought through. Saying that Christians can restrict the rights of gays is silly. Saying Christians can restrict women from having an abortion is silly. They do no such thing. They can show heavy resistance to it if thy wish to, but they cannot restrict what the law permits. It breaks their doctrine. I would like ask that you use example that are completely applicable to Christians.
Having said that I disagree that being Christians makes you a bad person. Is a murderer necessarily a bad person? No. Soldiers in war must slay many men for a cause they believe is just. Freedom, democracy, or even peace are just some examples. Does this make the soldier that has deprived another man's life a bad person? No. What about a thief? Is a thief necessarily a bad person? No. They can steal for selfish reasons, such as wealth or power, but some thieves steal to feed their children or to share common wealth. An extreme example is a terrorist, are they necessarily bad people? No. Let's say an attack from a Korean terrorist group has killed 5 people and wounded 20. Bad right? Yes. Let's say this man had conducted the attack because America is killing off their own people and he wishes to extract revenge in hopes that his people will not be slain. Is he a bad person? Not necessarily. Labels hold biases. Many people at heart are normal and moral people and do things because they believe it to be right. There are many more examples I could give, but I totes think that's all that's necessary.
If we did not have these justifications then the harmful act would be immoral.
You must realize that even justifications can become subjective and relative to the individual. Some justification will have people in agreement and others in dismay. An example is taxation. Some people see it as robbery and/or theft. The state justifies itself by saying that these taxes fund the basis of society and help pay for roads, police, etc. These things are to protect the population. If this was objectively true there would be no agreement, but many even see this justification as flawed and untrue for theft is theft and it's prevention is necessary. Why? Some people justify it by saying that they have the right to income and property and their possessions should only be given or taken at their discretion. This topic is up for debate, but the point is that these justifications are subjective to the individual. Let us say a Christian mother wishes to convert her gay son to being a heterosexual. She tells him that he will burn in hell, immoral? Maybe. Some may say yes and she should accept him as he is and just pray that he lives a nice life. Some may say that she is only wanting her beloved son to attain heaven so that she may be with him forever and he may find grace. Is that a good justification? Maybe. That's up to debate, but I totes think you get the point.
Thank you for writing such a comprehensive reply. My position can be summarised as this: Christians are bad people but only when they act on their Christian believes to change how others are treated, for example, in politics. This is what I would expect a Christian to be doing.
They cannot deny rights to gays...
They cannot force a woman to carry a child...
The point is that they want to and morally they can allow themselves to despite any argument to the contrary. If we were to have a Christian government that following the teachings of the bible then these things happen. Many Christian African countries (Malawi and Uganda being examples) have outlawed homosexuality. You're right that the laws in western societies restrict the Christian ethic.
Christians will have the same sense of morality as a non-believer...
I believe that innately they do yes. That a Christian, like any other person, may meet a homosexual, for example, and feel a natural kinship as human being tend to do to each other. They will feel that it is wrong to discriminate against this person because they would not want to be discriminate against themselves, that they naturally would not wish harm to anyone that doesn't harm them etc etc. The problem is this sense of morality that is innate in society is overwritten by the Christian's desire to serve God, forsaking all others.
You must realize that even justifications can become subjective and relative to the individual...
They can be. The point is that morality is extremely complex. For us to decide what is right in society we have to take the foundations of our ethics and be able to examine and re-evaluate them as time bases and as we learn more about ourselves and each others. The problem with Christianity is that you cannot argue against a Christians morals. They cannot evaluate whether what the bible says is moral or not they must follow it regardless.
Christians are bad people but only when they act on their Christian believes to change how others are treated, for example, in politics. This is what I would expect a Christian to be doing.
This premise is flawed since most Christian won't even try to change the minds of the populace. Only the select few will. Even so they aren't bad people.
The point is that they want to and morally they can allow themselves to despite any argument to the contrary.
A change in sentiment ehh? Again, most do not want to since they don't care. If they are all pro-life what's wrong with that? If they all don't like homosexuality what's wrong? They cannot change the edict already set in place. They have the right to voice their opinion. They have the right to protest.
If we were to have a Christian government that following the teachings of the bible then these things happen. Many Christian African countries (Malawi and Uganda being examples) have outlawed homosexuality. You're right that the laws in western societies restrict the Christian ethic.
Laws in America restrict them. What's wrong with banning homosexuality? That is their country. Regardless of the subjective form of morality you give as an answer you cannot override their ruling unless you use force.
The problem is this sense of morality that is innate in society is overwritten by the Christian's desire to serve God, forsaking all others.
Overwritten? That's false. Again, the non-believer edict is what rules the land. What country are you talking about? Also, again, must I remind you that Christians must serve the law of the land, thus whatever law rules is what they shall abide by.
The problem with Christianity is that you cannot argue against a Christians morals. They cannot evaluate whether what the bible says is moral or not they must follow it regardless.
Again, false. You can infact argue against Christian morals. The arguments so far have yet to trump the highest of "holy" scholars who dedicate their lives to finding exactly what the bible truly meant and how it meant what it meant.
Do you even know exactly what the bible tells Christians to do? No. Does the bible say enslave man? No. The bible is an account of old laws in place when slavery was the norm. Did the bible say go call all gays an "abomination"? No. Did the bible say shoot up abortion clinics? No. So what does the bible tell them to do that you find so "anti-society"?
I'm totes sorry, but your argument here is weaker than the first. I'm not sure you understand what Christians are obligated to do and follow. Any Christian extremists are not following what the bible says. So using them as an argument is illogical. One can uphold argumentation with Christian ethics, but until one comes up to par with the philisophical and moral arguments favoring Christians one cannot aggress and trump them.
Perhaps I need schooling a Christianity. They believe that those that haven't accepted Christ are going to burn in hell for an eternity, this is correct right? However, you're saying that very few will try and change the minds of other. How can that be? Christians are content with many of their family and friends suffering for eternity? ((perhaps the truth is most Christians don't rationally believe there is a hell....)) If I believed my friends were going to suffer that fortune I'd work endlessly night and day trying to convince them to save themselves. To believe that a society is going to hell and not wish to change them is immoral in itself.
Laws in America restrict them. What's wrong with banning homosexuality? That is their country. Regardless of the subjective form of morality you give as an answer you cannot override their ruling unless you use force.
The point is that harming people that don't harm anyone else is wrong. This is the case no matter what the people of that country think. A law criminalising homosexuality is immoral.
Overwritten? That's false. Again, the non-believer edict is what rules the land. What country are you talking about? Also, again, must I remind you that Christians must serve the law of the land, thus whatever law rules is what they shall abide by.
So the law of the land goes before the law of God? I don't understand this.
Did the bible say go call all gays an "abomination"? No.
Did the bible say shoot up abortion clinics? No. So what does the bible tell them to do that you find so "anti-society"?
You've already admitted that the USA restrict the Christian ethic. You must see there are Christian view points that are at odds with society's. Homosexuality is the issue that most springs to mind:
Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." 27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Of course there is the issue that you shouldn't live with or sleep with your partner before marriage too.
They believe that those that haven't accepted Christ are going to burn in hell for an eternity, this is correct right?
Not necessarily, some believe this and some don't.
However, you're saying that very few will try and change the minds of other. How can that be? Christians are content with many of their family and friends suffering for eternity? ((perhaps the truth is most Christians don't rationally believe there is a hell....)
No, its just that they aren't "holy" enough to even make an effort. Do you donate money to all the starving children in Africa? Most likely not. Why? It's sad yes, but is it your desire to help? Deep down inside tlis it truly a concern to you?
To believe that a society is going to hell and not wish to change them is immoral in itself.
Anything deemed moral or immoral is a subjective response to the active stimulus. I wouldn't even begin to dive into an argument like that. Most children in Africa are hungry, starving, and may die, will you go try to save them all? What about the children in China? Anywhere in the world dealing with starvation. We don't have a moral obligation to distant others, but to the ones we are closely presented with. That'd is in no sense wrong doing, but natural human nature.
The point is that harming people that don't harm anyone else is wrong. This is the case no matter what the people of that country think. A law criminalising homosexuality is immoral.
Again, i saying it's immoral is illogical in this context since other morals exist and triumph over yours. That country is upholding their morals. That just shows that morality is subjective and relative to what other say, since they also help shape the base sense of morals.
So the law of the land goes before the law of God? I don't understand this.
The law of God is to follow the laws of the land, that is a self-explanatory concept.
You've already admitted that the USA restrict the Christian ethic. You must see there are Christian view points that are at odds with society's. Homosexuality is the issue that most springs to mind:
It restricts the actions that extremists wish to exalt, yes, but strictly following he bible doesn't lead to anything objectively oppressive. Going against homosexuality is only to be expected, since they wish to preserve their old ways. However, the act of going against homosexuality or wishing to ban it is only to be expected and you as an individual can pick a side and argue over it and if homosexuality is legal Christians are obligated to give it credence.
Of course there is the issue that you shouldn't live with or sleep with your partner before marriage too.
Your argument is no based on subjective moral issues, and that is something you can debate with yourself or others. In the end,you have not proven that Christians are inherently bad people.
A bad person is a bad person regardless of what they subscribe to. Their are bad atheists, bad Christians, bad democrats, and bad republicans.
Now if the question was "does being a Christian make you more likely to do bad things" I'd reluctantly answer to the affirmative. A die hard Christian, with their beliefs rooted firmly into who they are, can do no moral wrong, because everything they do is asked for by a higher power, or divine creator. That's a scary though, dealing with a person who believes they are the epitome of good, or doing the epitome of good's deeds.
This is incorrect. A Christian is the first to admit that people have fallen into sin, and therefore are not perfect regardless of their actions. They know they can do moral wrong, and have done so. If someone says they can do no wrong because of God 'telling them' to do something, despite it contradicting Christianity's values/core tenets, then I wouldn't call those people 'Christian'.
This demonstrates perfectly how freedom is a state of mind. Christianity tells you to do things that you naturally many not want to but yet you still feel free.
Christianity tells you to do things that you naturally many not want to but yet you still feel free.
It's God that converts people. We as human beings don't convert ourselves or choose to believe. It was God who moved our hearts to believe. Yes, we are still free in Christ but that doesn't mean we should go around sinning because we are free in Christ. We attempt to live our lives better through Christ and turn away from the sins we used to do.
I don't see why being a true Christian would make someone a bad person. Though a lot of 'bad' people use Christianity as a crutch to look good in front of others, causing their immoral actions to reflect poorly on the whole.
No I don't think Christianity makes you a bad person, most Christians will abide by the law because the law is also very similar to the 10 commandments E.G. Thou shalt not kill, steal yadda yadda yadda. Most of their views have good intentions, I find that they're honest and kind people I have never spoken to a Christian that's rude or dishonest I think they're good people, I just don't agree with them on the religious choices.
To the majority, No. There is a small minority who use their Religion as a weapon to discriminate and they are hiding behind Christianity when they adhere to their bigotry.
I think it is impossible for any ONE overarching attribute to make anyone a bad person, except for something that describes there previous actions (ex. murderer). It is very dangerous to make a grand sweeping statement about any group of people. You might feel that most Christians that you have met are bad people, but that doesn't mean that Christianity makes you immediately bad. Just like being of a specific political party, or race or gender or nationality doesn't automatically make you a bad person.
You are only pointing out it's negatives. There are many positives to the bible. Its also a loving and inspiring book. Would you call a social studies book evil because it contain death, murder, or slavery? No. It's an book that show us how people thought in that time period. The bible is the exact same way. Everything in the bible was accepted in its day and age.
It is not just the stories in the bible which I do not like. It is what it actually says about slavery being OK, woman being inferior and homosexuality being wrong.
It doesn't condone slavery. It simply gives a historical glimpse of how people treated slavery since it was okay in biblical times. Also, these are just provisions that werr ti be followed when slavery was he norm. There was a lot of voluntary slavery. People would sell themselves so that they may have basic necessities.
Women are still inferior today and nobody is saying squat. Women are paid less and aren't preferred to hold political office. Again, these were the norms of past times. It doesn't say "treat women as inferiors".
Homosexuality is either right/wrong depending on the individual. Also, it was believed at the time that this was a sin beyong compare. An "abomination". Go ask a typical Christian what they think. They won't care. If it doesn't concern them they won't make an effort for change. Extremists will, but if they do they break their own doctrine that tells them to with hold judgment.
What does the bible actually advise them to do that you disagree with?
