"Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate -- I have Kant's categorical imperative to back me up"
Perhaps my desire for consistency is a bit rigid, but it seems inconsistent to appeal to a falsehood to support an argument. I guess I'm just wondering how you justify doing so unless you're trying to falsify someone else's framework and using their worldview against them. But in this case I don't hold to a Kantian ethic
Well I find it interesting that you felt it necessary to appeal to a form of objective morality, a system that you believe is false, in order to support your argument rather than the more subjective utilitarianism. Why not appeal to what you actually believe to be true instead of what is false?
Can I ask an honest question? Did you really try to read my arguments to understand what I was saying? Because basically everything you said about Christianity was not in the Bible, and in some cases was completely antithetical to what I said. I can understand if religion is not your strongest debate topic, and I'm guessing you have talked to a number of "Christians" who have no idea what they're talking about. But wouldn't you want to at least debate the position I am personally presenting, rather than an unbiblical form of Christianity I am not arguing for?
That is interesting about the languages. Regarding your personal revelation as to which Scriptures are trustworthy and which are corrupted, have you ever been wrong? As in, have you ever been wrong either about which verses are accurate or the interpretation of those verses after receiving this revelation?
I will look a little closer at this since you raise a valid question about the nature of God. As a side, that quote is from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and not Romans 11:22. I don't think it matters too much since it doesn't change your overall assertion, and I believe the Bible does actually teach what that quote says. Just happened to double check the reference and thought I'd let you know for clarity's sake.
But you are still saying that, without a personal and subjective revelation, we cannot know what is true in the Bible. So I believe He preserved the text of Scripture as His chosen form of revealing Himself, and you are saying His chosen form is personal experience. Please tell me then how I am somehow guilty of limiting God while you are not?
But what you've essentially said is that we can't confidently know whether or not the Bible has been accurately preserved so we should just assume that it has been corrupted and that we shouldn't trust it's authenticity. Why can we not trust the Bible and that God has preserved His Word in that text? If God is capable of preserving a text that acts as an objective standard to measure our subjective experiences against, why should we assume He has not done so? Simply saying "you are limiting God" is not a very good argument.
Not only that, your argument about not having texts before 300 BC only applies to the New Testament, not the Old Testament. So you have a whole different set of arguments to make about textual criticism.
I appreciate the compliment and look forward to the debate. I will not protest if you would like to take that approach if you think that will be a more productive approach to making an argument.
Would you like to explain which assertion from the description you are challenging so I might address it in Round 1, or would you like to keep your argument a surprise?
I only mentioned that because this debate will rely heavily on interpretation and the way the rules are worded would seem to favor the KJV over anything else, including those manuscripts. Per your comments, that wasn't your intent though. Not sure if I'll take this either way still, but that clarification will help
Thank you. This site certainly does represent many schools of thought. It has been helpful in forcing me to be more consistent and clear in presenting both conservatism and Christianity.
Ah I see. Since I did not instigate the debate, I will leave any proposed changes to be suggested by oromagi since the instigator frames the debate. While not flashy, I have no problem leaving the description as it was presented. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As a side, since it appears I will likely win, I feel like it would be hard for me to propose any changes that would not be self-aggrandizing.
Don't worry, I'm not too concerned the amount of notifications. I was just wondering if I was missing some context about what impact changing the debate description would have.
Just out of curiosity, was there an issue that prompted this question? I haven't read through all of the comments and am wondering if this has something to do with the controversy regarding Athias' vote, or something else. Thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy_regarding_Wales's_status_as_co-founder
---(was in a hurry and forgot to lookup up a RELIABLE source. Lobbed it up for you!)
To keep from any controversy in this debate, I will not plan to use any of the information provided. Honestly, I want to keep my points very simple and I already had an opening argument in mind that hopefully doesn't get too muddled in comparing the level of bias as a crucial component. I do appreciate your intention of support in this debate though Wesley.
It is the height of human arrogance to ignore all the atrocities we have committed against one another, even in the last century, and then attempt to put God on trial for being unjust.
If God is real (and He is), and if the stories in the Bible are true (and they are), then it is He who is the Lawmaker, the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Executioner. When humans decide to make their own laws, we get slavery and genocide. And why not? More evolved humans should eliminate less evolved ones to advance the species, right?
You would be wise to look at your own heart before you accuse God of wrongdoing and presume to act as judge over Him.
Your definition of gender includes three groups - male, female, and neuter. Wouldn't that definition already contradict the idea of gender being binary? I'm just thinking it would be hard to argue if the provided definition already assumes more than two groups.
Yes, I'm thinking this would not actually work well as a stand alone form of debating for that reason. If I were to test this again, I would probably do so following a real debate. This would allow for participants to question content already discussed there.
Yeah, I'm realizing my wording in the description could have been better to clarify that. What if we adjust and ask 2 questions PER ROUND instead? 4 might be too many but again, this could be adjusted in another debate.
My thought was this could provide a useful framework for two participants to follow up on a good debate. It could possibly be used as a stand alone tool to. I know it's a bit convoluted but I didn't want to do any less than four questions, and I couldn't organize it better given the 5 round limit.
Feel free to give suggestions or feedback if you think this seems like it could be useful. If not, I suppose public ridicule would be fitting. It might be a flop, but I thought it was worth a try!
I appreciate those words since I always find it hard to follow arguments that are poorly formatted. I should also give some credit to the DebateArt guide for listing some good ideas (I believe Ragnar provided this).
BrotherDThomas doesn't do these debates because for all his ranting and raving, his logic doesn't hold up. His only method is to insult people with a surface-level, biased view of the Bible. He left DDO (under the name "21stCenturyIconoclast") after I showed how ridiculous he was so he came here to spew the same old garbage. He blocked me here after I called him out too. It's a sorry life to live with that much animosity towards other people just because of their beliefs.
While I don't believe cruelness or hostility should be used in evangelism, every word in the topic statement is actually part of sharing the gospel when using the actual definition of the words. We also don't use those attitudes only, but they are all biblical. I am treating this as a disagreement between two Christians' methodology.
But here is what your argument said:
"Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate -- I have Kant's categorical imperative to back me up"
Perhaps my desire for consistency is a bit rigid, but it seems inconsistent to appeal to a falsehood to support an argument. I guess I'm just wondering how you justify doing so unless you're trying to falsify someone else's framework and using their worldview against them. But in this case I don't hold to a Kantian ethic
Well I find it interesting that you felt it necessary to appeal to a form of objective morality, a system that you believe is false, in order to support your argument rather than the more subjective utilitarianism. Why not appeal to what you actually believe to be true instead of what is false?
Out of curiosity, do you hold to Kantian ethics, particularly the idea of the Categorical Imperative? Do you believe that to be what is true?
No worries, I will address your intended meaning of only including movies
And I suppose Christianity -- the non-European religion founded by a non-white Jewish carpenter -- is part of this Eurocentric lie?
Can I ask an honest question? Did you really try to read my arguments to understand what I was saying? Because basically everything you said about Christianity was not in the Bible, and in some cases was completely antithetical to what I said. I can understand if religion is not your strongest debate topic, and I'm guessing you have talked to a number of "Christians" who have no idea what they're talking about. But wouldn't you want to at least debate the position I am personally presenting, rather than an unbiblical form of Christianity I am not arguing for?
Please ignore the egregious overuse of the various forms of 'simple' in my Round 2 Conclusion...
Yes sometimes I rush editing because of how many times I've already read through my arguments. Oh well
My time of shame is now complete.
I will now feel ashamed of myself for the next five minutes because I did not catch the wrong usage of "too" in my Round 1 conclusion.
Quote from Round 1:
P1. An omnipotent being can do anything
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory
I'm curious to know if anyone actually argues for this supposed definition of "omnipotence?"
For clarity, the second sentence should say "Rather *than* answering..."
That is interesting about the languages. Regarding your personal revelation as to which Scriptures are trustworthy and which are corrupted, have you ever been wrong? As in, have you ever been wrong either about which verses are accurate or the interpretation of those verses after receiving this revelation?
I will look a little closer at this since you raise a valid question about the nature of God. As a side, that quote is from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and not Romans 11:22. I don't think it matters too much since it doesn't change your overall assertion, and I believe the Bible does actually teach what that quote says. Just happened to double check the reference and thought I'd let you know for clarity's sake.
And just because I'm curious, what four languages did you read the Bible entirely in?
But you are still saying that, without a personal and subjective revelation, we cannot know what is true in the Bible. So I believe He preserved the text of Scripture as His chosen form of revealing Himself, and you are saying His chosen form is personal experience. Please tell me then how I am somehow guilty of limiting God while you are not?
But what you've essentially said is that we can't confidently know whether or not the Bible has been accurately preserved so we should just assume that it has been corrupted and that we shouldn't trust it's authenticity. Why can we not trust the Bible and that God has preserved His Word in that text? If God is capable of preserving a text that acts as an objective standard to measure our subjective experiences against, why should we assume He has not done so? Simply saying "you are limiting God" is not a very good argument.
Not only that, your argument about not having texts before 300 BC only applies to the New Testament, not the Old Testament. So you have a whole different set of arguments to make about textual criticism.
Are you saying God is incapable of preserving the text of the Bible from the time of it's writing until now?
I appreciate the compliment and look forward to the debate. I will not protest if you would like to take that approach if you think that will be a more productive approach to making an argument.
Would you like to explain which assertion from the description you are challenging so I might address it in Round 1, or would you like to keep your argument a surprise?
Well that didn't take long
I think the most controversial thing you said might be that being white is not a moral issue...at least in the court of fleeting public opinion.
Thank you! That means a lot coming from someone with your reputation
I only mentioned that because this debate will rely heavily on interpretation and the way the rules are worded would seem to favor the KJV over anything else, including those manuscripts. Per your comments, that wasn't your intent though. Not sure if I'll take this either way still, but that clarification will help
Are you trying to say that the English KJV translation is more authoritative than Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?
Thank you. This site certainly does represent many schools of thought. It has been helpful in forcing me to be more consistent and clear in presenting both conservatism and Christianity.
Thanks! And a 95 win streak is an amazing feat for oromagi. Like you said, that is probably the longest streak we will see.
Ah I see. Since I did not instigate the debate, I will leave any proposed changes to be suggested by oromagi since the instigator frames the debate. While not flashy, I have no problem leaving the description as it was presented. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As a side, since it appears I will likely win, I feel like it would be hard for me to propose any changes that would not be self-aggrandizing.
Well I appreciate that, thank you
Don't worry, I'm not too concerned the amount of notifications. I was just wondering if I was missing some context about what impact changing the debate description would have.
Just out of curiosity, was there an issue that prompted this question? I haven't read through all of the comments and am wondering if this has something to do with the controversy regarding Athias' vote, or something else. Thanks
When you said of seldiora's vote, "I believe the vote to be improper," were you intending to use the standard and accepted definition of 'improper'?
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Because that is not the definition of murder.
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Redefining the term "murderer" or "murder" will not lead to any type of productive discussion.
Sources for Round 2:
https://researchguides.library.brocku.ca/external-analysis/evaluating-sources#:~:text=As%20you%20examine%20each%20source,timeliness%2C%20and%20objectivity%20or%20bias
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy_regarding_Wales's_status_as_co-founder
---(was in a hurry and forgot to lookup up a RELIABLE source. Lobbed it up for you!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
To keep from any controversy in this debate, I will not plan to use any of the information provided. Honestly, I want to keep my points very simple and I already had an opening argument in mind that hopefully doesn't get too muddled in comparing the level of bias as a crucial component. I do appreciate your intention of support in this debate though Wesley.
It is the height of human arrogance to ignore all the atrocities we have committed against one another, even in the last century, and then attempt to put God on trial for being unjust.
If God is real (and He is), and if the stories in the Bible are true (and they are), then it is He who is the Lawmaker, the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Executioner. When humans decide to make their own laws, we get slavery and genocide. And why not? More evolved humans should eliminate less evolved ones to advance the species, right?
You would be wise to look at your own heart before you accuse God of wrongdoing and presume to act as judge over Him.
I see, that makes more sense.
Your definition of gender includes three groups - male, female, and neuter. Wouldn't that definition already contradict the idea of gender being binary? I'm just thinking it would be hard to argue if the provided definition already assumes more than two groups.
Yes, I'm thinking this would not actually work well as a stand alone form of debating for that reason. If I were to test this again, I would probably do so following a real debate. This would allow for participants to question content already discussed there.
Just saw your comment after posting. I am alright continuing with 4 questions. Go ahead and post 4 in your next round of you want to
Yeah, I'm realizing my wording in the description could have been better to clarify that. What if we adjust and ask 2 questions PER ROUND instead? 4 might be too many but again, this could be adjusted in another debate.
Well, since seldiora accepted we'll give it a shot just for kicks
Oh cool. Maybe I'll delete this for now so I can check that out since it'll probably be less confusing!
My thought was this could provide a useful framework for two participants to follow up on a good debate. It could possibly be used as a stand alone tool to. I know it's a bit convoluted but I didn't want to do any less than four questions, and I couldn't organize it better given the 5 round limit.
Feel free to give suggestions or feedback if you think this seems like it could be useful. If not, I suppose public ridicule would be fitting. It might be a flop, but I thought it was worth a try!
With the moral state of the current culture, I'm not so sure...
I appreciate those words since I always find it hard to follow arguments that are poorly formatted. I should also give some credit to the DebateArt guide for listing some good ideas (I believe Ragnar provided this).
BrotherDThomas doesn't do these debates because for all his ranting and raving, his logic doesn't hold up. His only method is to insult people with a surface-level, biased view of the Bible. He left DDO (under the name "21stCenturyIconoclast") after I showed how ridiculous he was so he came here to spew the same old garbage. He blocked me here after I called him out too. It's a sorry life to live with that much animosity towards other people just because of their beliefs.
While I don't believe cruelness or hostility should be used in evangelism, every word in the topic statement is actually part of sharing the gospel when using the actual definition of the words. We also don't use those attitudes only, but they are all biblical. I am treating this as a disagreement between two Christians' methodology.