#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Happy Whitsunday Srom!
You know, your faith is not at all useless for me - I get tons of days off this time a year, because my country considers itself a christian country.
Christ's Ascension, Prayer Day and let's not forget Sunday and lots of other days you consider ''holy'' and give me a nice break for not only school but also work. So thank you, Srom. Without your ridiculous belief, I'd be at work right now
Add New Argument |
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
So thank you, Srom. Without your ridiculous belief You said; Attack the belief, not the person who holds it'' Right? If I attacked Srom, wouldn't my sentence be saying Srom is ridiculous? In my sentence it is very clear it is the belief I think is ridiculous. So I don't see the problem. You are welcome to disagree with me. Yes I do - I don't think you should hesitate figuratively attacking someone if they have a belief that can be very insulting or demeaning others. Srom believes in a book that has an entire chapter dedicated to tell us which people we should kill (Leviticus 20) I'm not saying Srom intends to kill anyone, but there are several people who've killed in the name of the bible, and in the name of the christian God. To name one extreme example - Hitler. 1
point
So I don't see the problem. That's okay, I have no problem disagreeing. Srom was, wrongfully, feeling attacked when confronted with many counter arguments. Now Srom is actually being attacked and I'm here to support him because this debate is completely uncalled for. I don't think you should hesitate figuratively attacking someone if they have a belief that can be very insulting or demeaning others. ...there are several people who've killed in the name of the bible, and in the name of the christian God. To name one extreme example - Hitler. If confronted by Hitler I wouldn't attack him personally, I would attack his beliefs. This would lead to me having an complete understanding of them in order that I could point out the errors in logic. I believe this would be more effective in persuading him to change his beliefs. 1
point
If confronted by Hitler I wouldn't attack him personally, I would attack his beliefs. Okay? What if you were a jew. You would still just attack his belief? Now Srom is actually being attacked Well, I never meant to attack him. And i've read my debate discription over and over again, I'm not saying it indicated anything positive or anything, but I can't see anywhere where I literally attack him. I'm not saying it indicated anything positive or anything, but I can't see anywhere where I literally attack him. This is what I think the problem is: You attacked Srom's beliefs, not the belief system that Srom holds. Your statement doesn't indicate that you have something wrong with the stuff he believes in, but that whatever he believes in must be wrong. Since you made a blanket statement about his beliefs it sounds like you are mocking him personally. 1
point
But if Srom were the only one who had this belief, then that wouldn't be mocking him or attacking him personally? If I were the only one on earth who believed human beings evolved from polar bears, people would probably identify this belief as my belief, or what? Would it then be a personal attack on me, or a personal attack on my belief? 1
point
1
point
1
point
Maybe because everyone who tried to fight against his actions were beheaded? Sophia Scholl is one of many, but probably the most famous one. There was a movie made about her. Attacking Hitler would be much more effective. Fortunately we didn't have to, since he took care of it himself. 1
point
2
points
1
point
Question 1: If the entire old testamente is for meant for isralel, then does that men you don't oppose to homosexuality or adultery? As far as I know the new testament doesn't say anything about either. Question 2: You do believe the author of the old testament is the same God who is the author of the new, right? So even though God didn't mean those laws for all people, why do you trust a being that would ever write a chapter like levitucus 20? If the entire old testamente is for meant for isralel, then does that men you don't oppose to homosexuality or adultery? As far as I know the new testament doesn't say anything about either. I never indicated that all of the Old Testament is meant for Israel. The Leviticus Law and Number laws are for Israel because a lot of the chapters begin saying, "To the sons of Israel." I do oppose homosexuality and adultery. It still talks about homosexuality and adultery in the New Testament. You do believe the author of the old testament is the same God who is the author of the new, right? So even though God didn't mean those laws for all people, why do you trust a being that would ever write a chapter like levitucus 20? God is holy and if you try to mess with what He established that you get punished for your acts. It's not different then our system of law because if you don't follow it then you will get punished. Also God knows better than we do so He has the right to make those laws. 1
point
The Leviticus Law and Number laws are for Israel because a lot of the chapters begin saying, "To the sons of Israel." Why would God make rules for some people, that don't apply others? Further more, what if one of my ancestor is from Isrel? Doens't that make me a son of Israel? And does that then mean I should kill homosexuals, as well as people who committ adultery? Also God knows better than we do so He has the right to make those laws. That is not being questionable about your belief. You just told me a minute ago you question your belief. If you blindly and ignorantly follow what God tells you, then you are doing the exact opposite of questoioning. Which proves my point that your belief is ridiculous. 1
point
1
point
1
point
To me, I think you were being rude because of this statement that you said down below and other things that you said. "Without your ridiculous belief, I'd be at work right now" But, I'm already used to people calling my belief ridiculous and other rude things, but we'll all be held accountable one day for our actions, words, and thoughts. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
In Matthew 19:17, Jesus is speaking to a lawyer who was self righteous, since he wanted to put Jesus to the test. He asked what must he do in order to obtain eternal life, and Jesus responded with the requirements of keeping the commandments. If a person keeps all of the commandments, it would seem that they would obtain eternal life. However, nobody can keep all of the commandments. Therefore, Jesus' comments to this man can only be by faint since no one can keep all of the commandments. Also in Galatians 2:16 it tells us that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law, that is, by the works that he can do. So really you're going saved by faith. Source: http://carm.org/grace-or-works 1
point
|