Castin

Freedom of debate. Freedom to argue offensive and controversial opinions. Freedom to dive straight into danger zones and cultural taboos. Etc.

My question was more specific than “why is racism not banned?”. It was: “why are personal attacks banned but racism not?”. Because personal attacks can also be justified—you can say “three reasons why [insert username] is an idiot.” So if the standard is freedom to argue offensive opinions and freedom of debate, why are personal attacks not allowed? 

To be clear, I’m not arguing that personal attacks should be allowed. My point is, if the standard is harm, and if we as a community accept the principle that personal attacks shouldn’t be allowed, there’s no clear distinction between explicit racism and a personal attack. 

What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.

No, Leviticus explicitly states foreign slaves can be kept permanently...as in... forever [LINK].

Yeah, but this is true with Israelite slaves. They can be kept permanently as well.

What is death and what do you do when you die?, God has provided an answer but not atheists, so answer it already

That must mean that airmax1227 had 1226 ventriloquist hands for every one of his alt accounts. No wonder DDO had so much butthurt.

Question about CoC policy: why is calling someone a “f*cking idiot who deserves to go to hell” a CoC violation but explicit racism not? It seems to me that the latter is more harmful.

I blocked you because you blocked me, I do that to everyone that blocks me

More than I've ever bothered to do.

I actually don't think I've blocked anyone, like, ever.

- Some 250 mass shootings so far in 2019, that's almost one mass shooting per day. Yesterday, a white-nationalist terrorist opened fire on Hispanics in El Paso after posting his manifesto online ; 12 hours later a second mass shooting occurs in Dayton, Ohio. Authorities brush these off as "mental health" cases, but clearly there is much more to it than that.

Comment.

You know when you hung your body stretches so your entrails gush out.

*blink*

Honestly these hate speech laws should go to the trash can where they belong.

Going to change your response or is it still the same?

My response is still the same.

Lol I'm joking, he's totally banned. So, so racist. So, so banned.

But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today.

The question I have is, if there's so much stuff in the holy scriptures that you disagree with,why not just edit it out?

Why not just start from scratch and write down just the "good bits"?

The problem seems to be that people are quick to say (dogmatically) "the bible is a beacon of morality" and then twist themselves into pretzels when confronted with the actual text.

Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.

I guess for me this depends on how much of their holy text they're really holding on to. What they think still applies and what they think is just backstory. The worst offender is of course the Old Testament, which Christians have a complicated relationship with, in my experience. They've left it behind and yet not left it behind.

The problem I as a Christian might have with the Old Testament is not it's inclusion, but with the idea that harsh laws are at times, under certain circumstances, are necessary. I may not even see them as necessary, but I know I don't possess enough wisdom to make that call.

To give a more contemporary example, was it justifiable for the Army to shoot a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty? I think that was harsh myself. But I can't claim it wasn't necessary. It's quite possible that these unusual strict laws not imposed on civilians (we wouldn't execute a football player who shows fear of tackling) might have been necessary in some of our victories.

There is a distinction between the transient nation of Israel, and the rest of Christendom. Just as there is a distinction between the military, and civilian society.

I have no idea why some other atheists enjoy pointing out we're soulless machines so much. "Ha ha! You got no free will, sucka! Your brain is just a machine, God boy! We're all powerless fatherless accidents in a meaningless universe and we're all gonna die and that's it, lights out! Ha ha... ha... heh... eh... oh. Wait."

In my experience, atheists seem quite shy about talking about how gods and souls are purely imaginary, kinda like when you overhear a kid talking excitedly about Santa Claus, you generally keep your mouth shut because you don't really want them to burst into tears right in front of you.

*runs away crying*

I think the term 'free will' refers to something that isn't actually 'free' or 'will'.

Free will is what a leaf blowing in the wind doesn't have that I, walking into that wind to get to the shops, do have.

A practical way of thinking about it. But it pushes the term toward being merely synonymous with "autonomy" or something.

What is your patronus?

I have no idea. What would it be? Never thought about it.

Isn't this against the rules? 

c. Hate Speech

Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.

https://www.debateart.com/rules

You should read the Constitution AND other documents by the founders.

You’ll find that they intended for a secular government by, of, and for the people, a people of Judeo-Christian culture.

You @'d me with this so I'll assume you're interested in my return mindfarts. Have you read the Treaty of Tripoli by the founding fathers? 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I think this and other extracts fit with your statement reasonably well. Imo many of the central founding fathers leaned more toward deism and theistic rationalism than mainstream Christianity, which probably explains their secular values, but they certainly knew America was a Christian culture and would have said American values are compatible with Christian values because it would have been political suicide to say otherwise. It still is.

Well, I think if you can sing a song by an African American pop star (with the exception of maybe Lenny Kravitz), you must have a soul.

It might depend on how well you did though.

I'm amazing, so you make a strong argument. I'll have to think about this. (What do you mean "maybe" Lenny Kravitz.)

You know I'm a free will skeptic right. 

You seemed like you might be "on the fence" a bit.

Idk, vagueness on my part maybe.

If asked "How do you know __________?" I'm always going to point out that I don't "know" with certainty. I'm only human. I don't know we have no soul, or that free will does not exist -- but I think there are good reasons to doubt it. Or rather, I think there are better reasons to doubt it than to believe it.

I would suggest though, that if the aforementioned characters were actually real people, then my version of events is a far more realistic explanation for Mary's mystery pregnancy and the deception of her husband.

I think Mary and Joseph were (probably) real people.

I'd say the most likely scenario is that Mary and Joseph were an ordinary married couple and Jesus was conceived and born in the usual, unremarkable way.of such things.  That is why Mark and John say nothing about it - there is nothing to say. Paul seems unaware of anything unusual about the circumstances of Jesus' birth.  

Matthew and Luke made up the 'virgin birth' nonsense out of thin air for 'theological' reasons.