It means I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It is not inaccurate as your last argument of this debate stated. It is authoritative because God is the author of every word, though He used humans as the means of recording those words. Thus the authority of the Bible is not from man but from God. That includes the account of Genesis and every other record of events that seem to disagree with our modern "science." It also means that if I can't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man in a way that satisfies my tiny human brain, I don't just reject it. I go to the text to determine what it says is true about reality.
But if you don't subject yourself to the authority of the Bible,and you are willing to let science be your ultimate authority in such a clear issue as Genesis, then there is no reason for making a biblical argument for other difficult topics.
I believe that the Bible clearly teaches God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. Yet we are also held accountable for our sins. You have already claimed the Bible is not your ULTIMATE authority. And I will not defend this claim by appealing to another authority as higher than the Bible, which is my ultimate authority.
"Job was a heathen in the sense that he was not a jew and not a follower of Christ."
Jews could either be considered descendents of Shem (Semites), or descendants of Abraham depending on what approach you take. If that's the case, then Noah was also a "heathen" according to how you are defining it since he was a descendent of neither one. Whatever definitions you use, it is only people with true faith in God who will be saved.
And I believe Scripture teaches the Reformed position that no sinner will ever choose to seek after God in obedience unless they are first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. There is no one who, in and of themselves, decides to seek after God. Romans 3:10-12 emphasizes that point. The elect, or all who will be in heaven, are those God chose before the foundation of the world to be named in the book of life.
If you want to be technical, no he wasn't a "Christian" in the sense that he had a full revelation of Jesus Christ. But he was one of God's elect as are all Christians. So I should clarify, when you say "non-Christians" are you referring to God's elect prior to the establishment of the church (e.g. Abraham)? Or are you referring to people who don't have saving faith in God?
And if God saves everyone except the people who choose not to seek after Him, how do you deal with this text below?
“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12).
Theology is just a word referring to the study of God or knowledge about God. To say Job didn't know anything about theology is to say Job knew nothing about God, which is obviously not the case.
But only those who have true and saving faith will go to heaven. That's how God has operated from the Fall in Genesis to Judgment Day in Revelation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3). If a person does not have saving faith, they are not a Christian, and they are still in their sins. Every person is guilty of sin, and God is not obligated to save anyone.
But I have to wonder then, if you believe non-Christians will be in heaven, do you believe we are only saved through faith alone? How does a non-Christian who does not have faith in Christ end up in heaven?
I would say it is more biblically accurate to define a Christian as someone with true and saving faith in Christ for salvation. But yes, only Christians go to heaven.
To put what the Bible says about who will go to heaven in very simple terms, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).
So I don't believe that only Lutherans or Baptists will go to heaven. But if my "sect" contains people who have faith in Jesus, and excludes all who do not have faith, then you are absolutely right. That's not out of arrogance, it's out of trust that Jesus meant what He said. But you continue refusing to make any comment on what you believe, which is concerning to say the least. Are you a universalist? Who do you think goes to heaven and why?
But the whole basis of your paper is that you are evaluating historical documents as a philosopher while ignoring them as a historian (I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "an historian" but that just feels wrong!). I'm not a historian, but anyone who is will tell you those questions are critical to ask when approaching historical texts.
And we agree then that self-creation is absurd. But then basically you're saying you have no idea where the "stuff" that went bang came from? Or whether it was eternal or created by something eternal?
Skimmed your paper. So how much credibility do you believe the works of those historians have? Specifically, how accurate do you think their writings are in describing the people, places, and events they recorded? And do you believe that we have accurate records today of the actual words they wrote?
Regarding truth, I assume then that you believe things actually and objectively exist. Now this idea is not original to me in any way, but would you agree anything that exists must be self-created, eternal, or created by something eternal?
You must be a prodigy if, as a middle schooler, you were debunking widely accepted historical records. But you can't debunk the fact that God will judge the world for every evil act ever committed. I hope you realize that before it's too late...
No, I believe there is such a thing as objective truth. We do our best to interpret our physical universe using the scientific method. We also do our best to interpret the inspired Word of God using sound hermeneutics. The difference is that God has promised to help us with understanding His written revelation. We have no such promise in interpreting the universe.
But the one thing that Christians should have absolute trust and knowledge of is the biblical testimony of the gospel. Which is why I was asking you to articulate how you believe a person is saved. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But I would highly suggest you consider that question, as well as why you can trust your answer. There is an objectively right and wrong answer. And how we answer that question determines whether or not we are truly Christians.
So you can't explain what the gospel is? It's not a trick question. I genuinely want to hear
- from one professing Christian to another - what you believe the gospel is.
"However, you know that real people wrote the book, and they SAW Jesus with their own eyes. If seeing a person is not scientific evidence for their existence then I do not know what is."
I think you have a faulty definition of science. If I told you that I saw someone drop an apple and it floated into the sky rather than falling to the ground, would you believe me? Science is a methodology involving that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence, but it is not SCIENTIFIC.
And the Bible is authoritative simply because it is. It is objectively true regardless of what anyone thinks of it. It is divine in origin and God does not lie. It bears the authority of God because God is ultimately the author, even when humans wrote down the words.
Do you believe the passage below is true?
(2 Peter 1:20-21)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
"Is it a problem that I don’t have a scientific defense of how a person could be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Each of us believes many things that are not grounded in science"
If science is the ultimate authority as you are claiming, then you have no defense of the resurrection since science cannot confirm the claim of the resurrection. Using the scientific method, every time we observe a human die, they stay dead. You have to have an authority that is higher than science to allow for belief in the resurrection. In this case, it is the Bible. So what is your ULTIMATE authority to determine what is true, science or the Bible?
Please quote a single scholarly scientific source that supports your claim, "Science does not deny a resurrection, it just says: 'All things being equal, people do not survive death'."
And is God not a factor in creation? What interpretive method are you using to say the resurrection can defy natural laws but creation cannot? If science is your ultimate authority and your main interpretive tool, then you have to deny the resurrection. You can claim what you want, but "science" in no way supports the idea that a human can come back to life after being dead for three days.
My point is if science cannot explain the biblical testimony of the resurrection, then perhaps we shouldn't force the biblical account of creation to be determined by our current and fallible understanding of the natural world.
Based on your argumentation in the debate, you have essentially said that science determines what is true or false. Take your syllogism:
P1: The Bible supports science as glorifying God
P2: Science proves that the universe was is 14 billion years old (might change)
C: Christians should believe the universe is more than 10.000 years old
And I never said we should deny science. But if science is the arbiter of truth, and science takes precedence over what the Bible says, then what do we do with the resurrection? If we use your syllogism:
P1: The Bible supports science as glorifying God
P2: Science proves that people cannot be raised from the dead
C: Christians should believe Jesus did not rise from the dead
It's a slippery slope to say that we can only understand theology based on our understanding of science. That's why I am saying be careful what you place your faith in.
If you subject the Bible to the authority of science - more specifically, human observations of the physical world - then the Christian faith is worthless and we are of all people most to be pitied. Be careful what you place your faith in.
Yeah, I definitely agree that there are no current laws that can be considered racist (well besides affirmative action...). But what I found interesting was that he said we need to give more control to the government so that corporations can't create racist policies like Jim Crow laws. The irony being corporations don't legislate. But I think you identified the overarching problem: the idea that corporations and government should be categorized as personal agents, thus separating them from the individuals they are comprised of. Or in general, corporations are always evil greedy entities that need to be controlled, and government is the benevolent savior that will take control and provide all our needs. But there is a failure to recognize that both entities are made up of individual humans, capable of both great benefit and great harm to others.
I appreciate the votes and extended feedback. Even if the votes hadn't gone in my direction, I know it takes time to analyze debates and it seems like you all put in a good amount of effort doing so.
So we should probably just adopt communism so the government has total control, and that will eliminate all the oppression of corporations. That's what your correlation would imply.
Even if what you were saying was true, you would only be furthering my point. Because now the government is inherently racist and oppressive, AND they are corruptly controlled by outside forces to create oppressive laws. So why should we give this racist oppressive and corrupt government MORE power to create oppressive laws?
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you just said. Corporations were the main party in using their legislative authority to create and enforce laws - in this case Jim Crow laws? That is unless you were trying to dodge the question...
Well it should be noted that free speech comes with a duty not to slander a fellow citizen in order to harm their reputation and such. I understand that becomes problematic when you abandon objective truth and morality because then any speech considered offensive by popular opinion becomes illegal. But free speech is not the only issue. The government taking authoritarian control of the economy is another problematic issue.
The point is, the more control we hand over to the government to fix the alleged problems, means the more control the government now has to create more problems in the future. Less control=less ability to create more problems. But again, if a racist government apologizes for abusing human rights, would you immediately give that government near-unlimited authority to legislate in the name of racial equality? If a pedophile apologizes for abusing children, would you put that person in charge of a daycare?
And I suppose you are seeking to abolish the system that guarantees every citizen's right to free speech, for a system where the government determines what is acceptable speech and what is "hate speech"?
If the government is supposedly responsible for systemic racism and oppression, perhaps the solution is to give them less authority to dictate how we live our lives, not more. If you give them the power to restrict the constitutional rights of those you disagree with (hate speech laws, gun control laws, etc.), what will stop them from then restricting your rights later? After all, they are inherently bigoted and oppressive.
It's kind of like trusting a pedophile with daycare reform.
I mean this with all sincerity: please consider whose side you are on. I believe you when you say that you would join Satan, and I take no pleasure in informing where that leads.
"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh."
--Revelation 19:11-21
Judgment is coming and there is only one way to be saved from it.
Well you were shown clearly to be in the wrong, yet you will not admit it. And you are continuing to ask a question based on the faulty premise that God must somehow show consistency with your faulty definition. We both agree that your imaginary omnibenevolent god is inconsistent.
If you refuse to admit your error in misusing a passage while trying to malign God based on a false definition, there is no reason to answer your question. That is dishonest and intellectually inconsistent.
Well no disrespect to whiteflame, but God has already sufficiently revealed Himself and His character in the Bible. If someone describes God in a way that is inconsistent with the Bible (such as whiteflame's "omnibenevolence"), that is not the God of the Bible. That means you are not arguing against the one true God, but a false god of your own making.
So if your argument is that your imaginary omnibenevolent god is inconsistent, then I would heartily agree.
If you would bother actually learning about the topic you are attempting to critique, you would understand how foolish that sounds. Read the next verse:
"The Lord is slow to anger and great in power,
And the Lord will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.
--Nahum 1:3
Who is the Lord's enemy that He is furious with? Who is the Lord's adversary that He will give retribution to? The GUILTY. God doesn't punish the innocent but the guilty. So the passage you quoted is about God acting as a judge dealing out just punishment to the guilty, which you have admitted is not evil.
Since I would like to try to interact with your view but I don't want to make false assumptions, let me ask a quick question if you're willing to answer here. Should I take your definition of sentience to refer to a level that includes only humans? As in, animals wouldn't be included in the same moral standard as humans?
Or are you saying that sentience would include at least certain animals and not just humans?
I don't need an exact definition, just hoping for a bit of clarity.
The statement "Christianity is the correct religion" does not necessarily communicate the authority of Scripture if you don't define "Christianity." I considered accepting this debate but hesitated for the sake of time, but also because I didn't want to have to waste debate space potentially having resolve the issue of authority. I am now clear on your position, but anyone who accepts may not be. My intent was only to be helpful and save you the trouble of having to debate biblical authority rather than YEC by including a disclaimer in the description. But again, it's your debate and you can frame it how you'd like.
How is the inspiration and inerrancy not relevant? If the Bible originates from God (inspired) and the text can be relied upon for accuracy (inerrant), then that is the basis by which you can appeal to the Bible as authoritative.
Conversely, if it originates from man and it contains errors, then there is no reason to appeal to it. But it's your debate so you can frame it how you'd like. You just can't say that the authority of the Bible is irrelevant to a debate about what the Bible teaches.
You should probably add what authority the Bible has in your description. Some "Christians" think it is nothing more than an error-filled work originating from man rather than God. Just a thought
Before I start, my claims that you were racist and such were done tongue in cheek as a logical conclusion to your own claims. I do not actually believe you are those things and you would do well to stop slandering me with such titles without being able to back them up. You are the one who said you don't even know how to support that racism is a moral issue as my worldview easily allows.
I had two separate but similar claims:
1) "...that Disney has no obligation to make any changes to their current activities or trajectory in order to increase social diversity in movie roles."
My argument that the plan is inconsistent and incoherent are the basis for why Disney has no obligation to implement these particular changes. This does not mean that Disney has NO moral obligations, but those come from God. Without God, they would have no moral obligations.
2) "... I do not believe PRO has any moral grounds to prove that Disney has an obligation to do something that potentially benefits society at the cost of financial loss."
This claim is that YOU have no basis to assert that Disney must implement your plan, or any plan for that matter. Even if it did somehow fight racism, you have no moral grounds to say Disney should do this. I do believe Disney has the same moral obligations that God gives to all people, and they are subject to their Creator. You have no such basis.
It means I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It is not inaccurate as your last argument of this debate stated. It is authoritative because God is the author of every word, though He used humans as the means of recording those words. Thus the authority of the Bible is not from man but from God. That includes the account of Genesis and every other record of events that seem to disagree with our modern "science." It also means that if I can't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man in a way that satisfies my tiny human brain, I don't just reject it. I go to the text to determine what it says is true about reality.
But if you don't subject yourself to the authority of the Bible,and you are willing to let science be your ultimate authority in such a clear issue as Genesis, then there is no reason for making a biblical argument for other difficult topics.
I believe that the Bible clearly teaches God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. Yet we are also held accountable for our sins. You have already claimed the Bible is not your ULTIMATE authority. And I will not defend this claim by appealing to another authority as higher than the Bible, which is my ultimate authority.
"Job was a heathen in the sense that he was not a jew and not a follower of Christ."
Jews could either be considered descendents of Shem (Semites), or descendants of Abraham depending on what approach you take. If that's the case, then Noah was also a "heathen" according to how you are defining it since he was a descendent of neither one. Whatever definitions you use, it is only people with true faith in God who will be saved.
And I believe Scripture teaches the Reformed position that no sinner will ever choose to seek after God in obedience unless they are first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. There is no one who, in and of themselves, decides to seek after God. Romans 3:10-12 emphasizes that point. The elect, or all who will be in heaven, are those God chose before the foundation of the world to be named in the book of life.
If you want to be technical, no he wasn't a "Christian" in the sense that he had a full revelation of Jesus Christ. But he was one of God's elect as are all Christians. So I should clarify, when you say "non-Christians" are you referring to God's elect prior to the establishment of the church (e.g. Abraham)? Or are you referring to people who don't have saving faith in God?
And if God saves everyone except the people who choose not to seek after Him, how do you deal with this text below?
“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12).
Theology is just a word referring to the study of God or knowledge about God. To say Job didn't know anything about theology is to say Job knew nothing about God, which is obviously not the case.
But only those who have true and saving faith will go to heaven. That's how God has operated from the Fall in Genesis to Judgment Day in Revelation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3). If a person does not have saving faith, they are not a Christian, and they are still in their sins. Every person is guilty of sin, and God is not obligated to save anyone.
But I have to wonder then, if you believe non-Christians will be in heaven, do you believe we are only saved through faith alone? How does a non-Christian who does not have faith in Christ end up in heaven?
Did Job have faith in God?
I would say it is more biblically accurate to define a Christian as someone with true and saving faith in Christ for salvation. But yes, only Christians go to heaven.
To put what the Bible says about who will go to heaven in very simple terms, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).
So I don't believe that only Lutherans or Baptists will go to heaven. But if my "sect" contains people who have faith in Jesus, and excludes all who do not have faith, then you are absolutely right. That's not out of arrogance, it's out of trust that Jesus meant what He said. But you continue refusing to make any comment on what you believe, which is concerning to say the least. Are you a universalist? Who do you think goes to heaven and why?
Do you believe that everyone who ever existed will go to heaven (universalism)?
If not, what is the reason some people go to heaven and some people go to hell?
If so, then you are not a Christian.
But the whole basis of your paper is that you are evaluating historical documents as a philosopher while ignoring them as a historian (I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "an historian" but that just feels wrong!). I'm not a historian, but anyone who is will tell you those questions are critical to ask when approaching historical texts.
And we agree then that self-creation is absurd. But then basically you're saying you have no idea where the "stuff" that went bang came from? Or whether it was eternal or created by something eternal?
Skimmed your paper. So how much credibility do you believe the works of those historians have? Specifically, how accurate do you think their writings are in describing the people, places, and events they recorded? And do you believe that we have accurate records today of the actual words they wrote?
Regarding truth, I assume then that you believe things actually and objectively exist. Now this idea is not original to me in any way, but would you agree anything that exists must be self-created, eternal, or created by something eternal?
Yet you fail to substantiate your claim of how easy it is to debunk those historical records. But do you even believe in objective truth?
You must be a prodigy if, as a middle schooler, you were debunking widely accepted historical records. But you can't debunk the fact that God will judge the world for every evil act ever committed. I hope you realize that before it's too late...
No, I believe there is such a thing as objective truth. We do our best to interpret our physical universe using the scientific method. We also do our best to interpret the inspired Word of God using sound hermeneutics. The difference is that God has promised to help us with understanding His written revelation. We have no such promise in interpreting the universe.
But the one thing that Christians should have absolute trust and knowledge of is the biblical testimony of the gospel. Which is why I was asking you to articulate how you believe a person is saved. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But I would highly suggest you consider that question, as well as why you can trust your answer. There is an objectively right and wrong answer. And how we answer that question determines whether or not we are truly Christians.
So you can't explain what the gospel is? It's not a trick question. I genuinely want to hear
- from one professing Christian to another - what you believe the gospel is.
Benjamin, this may seem off topic but could you do something? Could you explain what the gospel is as specifically as you can?
But then we're still left with the question, what is your ULTIMATE authority? Science - as your argument stated - or the text of the Bible?
"However, you know that real people wrote the book, and they SAW Jesus with their own eyes. If seeing a person is not scientific evidence for their existence then I do not know what is."
I think you have a faulty definition of science. If I told you that I saw someone drop an apple and it floated into the sky rather than falling to the ground, would you believe me? Science is a methodology involving that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence, but it is not SCIENTIFIC.
And the Bible is authoritative simply because it is. It is objectively true regardless of what anyone thinks of it. It is divine in origin and God does not lie. It bears the authority of God because God is ultimately the author, even when humans wrote down the words.
Do you believe the passage below is true?
(2 Peter 1:20-21)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
From the same exact source:
"Is it a problem that I don’t have a scientific defense of how a person could be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Each of us believes many things that are not grounded in science"
If science is the ultimate authority as you are claiming, then you have no defense of the resurrection since science cannot confirm the claim of the resurrection. Using the scientific method, every time we observe a human die, they stay dead. You have to have an authority that is higher than science to allow for belief in the resurrection. In this case, it is the Bible. So what is your ULTIMATE authority to determine what is true, science or the Bible?
Please quote a single scholarly scientific source that supports your claim, "Science does not deny a resurrection, it just says: 'All things being equal, people do not survive death'."
And is God not a factor in creation? What interpretive method are you using to say the resurrection can defy natural laws but creation cannot? If science is your ultimate authority and your main interpretive tool, then you have to deny the resurrection. You can claim what you want, but "science" in no way supports the idea that a human can come back to life after being dead for three days.
My point is if science cannot explain the biblical testimony of the resurrection, then perhaps we shouldn't force the biblical account of creation to be determined by our current and fallible understanding of the natural world.
Based on your argumentation in the debate, you have essentially said that science determines what is true or false. Take your syllogism:
P1: The Bible supports science as glorifying God
P2: Science proves that the universe was is 14 billion years old (might change)
C: Christians should believe the universe is more than 10.000 years old
And I never said we should deny science. But if science is the arbiter of truth, and science takes precedence over what the Bible says, then what do we do with the resurrection? If we use your syllogism:
P1: The Bible supports science as glorifying God
P2: Science proves that people cannot be raised from the dead
C: Christians should believe Jesus did not rise from the dead
It's a slippery slope to say that we can only understand theology based on our understanding of science. That's why I am saying be careful what you place your faith in.
If you subject the Bible to the authority of science - more specifically, human observations of the physical world - then the Christian faith is worthless and we are of all people most to be pitied. Be careful what you place your faith in.
Yeah, I definitely agree that there are no current laws that can be considered racist (well besides affirmative action...). But what I found interesting was that he said we need to give more control to the government so that corporations can't create racist policies like Jim Crow laws. The irony being corporations don't legislate. But I think you identified the overarching problem: the idea that corporations and government should be categorized as personal agents, thus separating them from the individuals they are comprised of. Or in general, corporations are always evil greedy entities that need to be controlled, and government is the benevolent savior that will take control and provide all our needs. But there is a failure to recognize that both entities are made up of individual humans, capable of both great benefit and great harm to others.
I appreciate the votes and extended feedback. Even if the votes hadn't gone in my direction, I know it takes time to analyze debates and it seems like you all put in a good amount of effort doing so.
It might be more interesting to look at the correlation between the amount of gun restrictions and the level of liberty citizens enjoy.
So we should probably just adopt communism so the government has total control, and that will eliminate all the oppression of corporations. That's what your correlation would imply.
Even if what you were saying was true, you would only be furthering my point. Because now the government is inherently racist and oppressive, AND they are corruptly controlled by outside forces to create oppressive laws. So why should we give this racist oppressive and corrupt government MORE power to create oppressive laws?
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you just said. Corporations were the main party in using their legislative authority to create and enforce laws - in this case Jim Crow laws? That is unless you were trying to dodge the question...
Who used their authority to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws?
Well it should be noted that free speech comes with a duty not to slander a fellow citizen in order to harm their reputation and such. I understand that becomes problematic when you abandon objective truth and morality because then any speech considered offensive by popular opinion becomes illegal. But free speech is not the only issue. The government taking authoritarian control of the economy is another problematic issue.
The point is, the more control we hand over to the government to fix the alleged problems, means the more control the government now has to create more problems in the future. Less control=less ability to create more problems. But again, if a racist government apologizes for abusing human rights, would you immediately give that government near-unlimited authority to legislate in the name of racial equality? If a pedophile apologizes for abusing children, would you put that person in charge of a daycare?
Is that the argument you are going to use to give the government unlimited authority to decide what you can and cannot say?
And I suppose you are seeking to abolish the system that guarantees every citizen's right to free speech, for a system where the government determines what is acceptable speech and what is "hate speech"?
Crazy thought:
If the government is supposedly responsible for systemic racism and oppression, perhaps the solution is to give them less authority to dictate how we live our lives, not more. If you give them the power to restrict the constitutional rights of those you disagree with (hate speech laws, gun control laws, etc.), what will stop them from then restricting your rights later? After all, they are inherently bigoted and oppressive.
It's kind of like trusting a pedophile with daycare reform.
I mean this with all sincerity: please consider whose side you are on. I believe you when you say that you would join Satan, and I take no pleasure in informing where that leads.
"Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh."
--Revelation 19:11-21
Judgment is coming and there is only one way to be saved from it.
Well you were shown clearly to be in the wrong, yet you will not admit it. And you are continuing to ask a question based on the faulty premise that God must somehow show consistency with your faulty definition. We both agree that your imaginary omnibenevolent god is inconsistent.
If you refuse to admit your error in misusing a passage while trying to malign God based on a false definition, there is no reason to answer your question. That is dishonest and intellectually inconsistent.
Will you admit that you MISUSED the passage? Or are you going to keep arguing against an "omnibenevolent" god
Well no disrespect to whiteflame, but God has already sufficiently revealed Himself and His character in the Bible. If someone describes God in a way that is inconsistent with the Bible (such as whiteflame's "omnibenevolence"), that is not the God of the Bible. That means you are not arguing against the one true God, but a false god of your own making.
So if your argument is that your imaginary omnibenevolent god is inconsistent, then I would heartily agree.
I will answer your attempt to change the topic if you admit that you misused the passage in Nahum.
If you would bother actually learning about the topic you are attempting to critique, you would understand how foolish that sounds. Read the next verse:
"The Lord is slow to anger and great in power,
And the Lord will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.
--Nahum 1:3
Who is the Lord's enemy that He is furious with? Who is the Lord's adversary that He will give retribution to? The GUILTY. God doesn't punish the innocent but the guilty. So the passage you quoted is about God acting as a judge dealing out just punishment to the guilty, which you have admitted is not evil.
Is it evil for a judge to sentence a murderer to the death penalty?
???
No worries. Perhaps it is better not to get caught in the crossfire of a pissing contest anyway
Since I would like to try to interact with your view but I don't want to make false assumptions, let me ask a quick question if you're willing to answer here. Should I take your definition of sentience to refer to a level that includes only humans? As in, animals wouldn't be included in the same moral standard as humans?
Or are you saying that sentience would include at least certain animals and not just humans?
I don't need an exact definition, just hoping for a bit of clarity.
The statement "Christianity is the correct religion" does not necessarily communicate the authority of Scripture if you don't define "Christianity." I considered accepting this debate but hesitated for the sake of time, but also because I didn't want to have to waste debate space potentially having resolve the issue of authority. I am now clear on your position, but anyone who accepts may not be. My intent was only to be helpful and save you the trouble of having to debate biblical authority rather than YEC by including a disclaimer in the description. But again, it's your debate and you can frame it how you'd like.
How is the inspiration and inerrancy not relevant? If the Bible originates from God (inspired) and the text can be relied upon for accuracy (inerrant), then that is the basis by which you can appeal to the Bible as authoritative.
Conversely, if it originates from man and it contains errors, then there is no reason to appeal to it. But it's your debate so you can frame it how you'd like. You just can't say that the authority of the Bible is irrelevant to a debate about what the Bible teaches.
What do you mean by a "scientific article?" Do you believe in an inspired and inerrant text?
You should probably add what authority the Bible has in your description. Some "Christians" think it is nothing more than an error-filled work originating from man rather than God. Just a thought
Before I start, my claims that you were racist and such were done tongue in cheek as a logical conclusion to your own claims. I do not actually believe you are those things and you would do well to stop slandering me with such titles without being able to back them up. You are the one who said you don't even know how to support that racism is a moral issue as my worldview easily allows.
I had two separate but similar claims:
1) "...that Disney has no obligation to make any changes to their current activities or trajectory in order to increase social diversity in movie roles."
My argument that the plan is inconsistent and incoherent are the basis for why Disney has no obligation to implement these particular changes. This does not mean that Disney has NO moral obligations, but those come from God. Without God, they would have no moral obligations.
2) "... I do not believe PRO has any moral grounds to prove that Disney has an obligation to do something that potentially benefits society at the cost of financial loss."
This claim is that YOU have no basis to assert that Disney must implement your plan, or any plan for that matter. Even if it did somehow fight racism, you have no moral grounds to say Disney should do this. I do believe Disney has the same moral obligations that God gives to all people, and they are subject to their Creator. You have no such basis.
I assume you are an atheist? I have to ask then, do you believe stealing is ok?
That is certainly an interesting approach. But it does at least help clarify your argument.