That's a great question that many people don't realize or understand. In short, the KJV is a relatively "new" creation, borne out of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible
1. The canon of the Bible came into existence around the 3rd or 4th century and it had 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)
2. This Bible was in use for over 1000 years until the "Protestant Reformation"
3. As a result of the reformation, 7 books from the OT were removed and this "new version" of the Bible began to be used by Protestant demoninations. The KJV is what is often referred to as a "Protestant" Bible, and is "missing" 7 books that are contained in the "Catholic Bible".
The NABRE version has the approval of the Holy See (Catholic Church) for use and retains the 7 books that the Protestant Bible does not contain (which explains many of the disparities between Catholics and Protestants).
So, on the surface KJV may look similar to the NABRE version, but in reality the KJV is lacking 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch)
How and why the books were removed is subject to very lengthy debate as well....
Hey I'm sorry for posting Bible Version in the comments and not directly messaging you. It wasn't until after I posted the comment that I realized you specified to DM you. My bad.
If I were to accept this debate, I would insist on the following:
1. Use of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) found at www.usscb.org/bible. THe KJV is lacking in several key books of the OT. And since the early Christians only used the OT, it's important which version you use.
2. Must also use the Old Testament, and not just the New Testament. "Christianity" is about a person, namely "Jesus Christ" and following Him (which you properly defined), and not about "book". The first Christians practiced Christianity-- they were followers of Christ. The NT wasn't even written at that time-- the only Scriptures the early Christians had to follow was the OT.
The KJV is a relatively new invention. Whereas the NABRE has the approval of the Holy See and is true to the version the Holy See has been using for some 1600 years or so.
I'm game. But is that really the debate you are wanting to have -- that the Bible is "inconsistent", or is it really that the Bible should be discarded because of it's inconsistency? I think the deeper questions are:
1. What is the inconsistency?
2. WHY is there an inconsistency?
- for the first passage, what was the intent/context of that passage?
- for the subsequent passages, what was (were) the intent/contexts of those passages?
3. What is the real teaching behind those passages?
4. Is the "inconsistency" have an implication for the overall teaching behind those passages?
Looking forward to this debate. In particular, I'm looking forward to learning what "magically happens" at birth or any other point in time other than conception that deems the life worthy of protection.
I would've asked him to clarify what he means by "women" when states "Put simply, I don’t hate women. This causes me to be in favor of their continued rights."
All women or just certain women? "Woman" technically is an adult female. So is he implying there are some females he does hate, and thus would be in favor of eliminating their rights? This is a huge question with huge implications.
- if you love X (i.e. don't X), then it follows the very first thing would be to allow X to continue to exist (live). After all, how could you say you love "X" but want it to not live (continue existing).
It also follows that if you love (don't hate) X, you would want those things that develop into X to continue to do so.
For starters, Ragnar's link makes no mention of Proof that Jesus is Joseph's blood son. I read Genesis 12:1-3, here's what it states inthe link:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed"
Not sure how you can make the leap and say that this proves the Messiah would be a blood relative of Abraham and thus Jesus is the blood son of Joseph.
Alright, let the record show I"ve been blocked by Ragnar. Guess I need to tone down the sarcasm. He provided a comment on a debate I was having,a comment which goes against what my faith and Christianity teach. So naturally, rather than be silent, I'm going to challenge that comment.
I do not believe (a) that Jesus was the "blood son" of Joseph, nor do I believe Matthew "proves" Jesus was the blood son of Joseph. Perhaps you took offense to my sarcasm (theological bombshell), if so, i apologize.
Matthew states lineage and nowhere does it state or imply that (a) Mary and JOseph had sex or (b) Jesus is the biological (blood son) of Joseph.
Matthew specifies the lineage of multiple generations from Abraham to "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah."
Not sure how you can make leap to say this proves He was the blood son of Joseph.
I can trace my brother's genealogy likewise:
From my great-great-great grandfather down to Robert (my dad) the father of Michael (my brother), the husband of Melissa. Of her was born Ian.
Can you definitively say "Ian" is the blood son of Michael? Yes? No?
For those itching to know, Ian was adopted and is not blood related to Michael. Michael still calls Ian "my son" and Ian calls Michael "my Father", but there is no blood relationship.
I've been now blocked by RationalMadman and Ragnar, both of whom made comments which go against my faith or what it teaches. When I challenged them on
it, they seem to take offense.
** 2. I would not consider that bookshelf to be one piece of literature, because that is simply the collection of books one person happens to own. Now, if someone were to publish a book consisting of those 5 works, then I would consider that to be one single piece of literature. To answer your third question as well (which you accidentally also called the second question), if someone were to publish a collection of books under a single title, then that book would be considered a single piece of literature, even though the other works are separate books in their own right. One more key distinguishing feature of a collective book (book with multiple books in it) is that it the different books in a collective are very often bound together by commonalities (subject matter, characters, author, etc.). In the case of the "master" comic that commonality is Superman, in the Iliad it is the Trojan War, and in the Bible, it is God. **
Your last point is a great point. A few more questions:
1. Who has the authority to say "why" the books were gathered (collected) the way they were? The person/people reading it or the person/people who actually put the collection together? Yes, we all have an opinion or say, but who would be correct?
2. DO you think it matters who put the collection together and why when you analyzing that collection (that piece of literature)?
** 3b. Each section of a piece of literature should be interpreted in its own way. However, if a statement made in one text directly contradicts another made in an earlier text, then it is considered internally inconsistent, regardless of whether that piece of text is literal or figurative.
3c. Whether or not a certain piece of text should be discredited entirely due to inconsistencies depends on the severity and frequency of the inconsistencies. This particular point is beyond the scope of this debate, but we can discuss this further in a separate debate and/or in the PMs if you wish. **
I think I tend to agree with you on this, at least on the surface. I guess then what it would boil down to is "what is the significance and/or impact of inconsistency?" In order to answer that question, I think it's only proper to consider who wrote it, when, the intent, context, etc.
Alright, I know your focused on the debate at hand, but I will offer some comments.
1. The Jury is still out on whether or not the Iliad was written by one person or multiple people over the course of time. But for the sake of argument, we can stick with the assumption it was written by multiple authors over time.
a. With the Iliad, it would be safe to assume that the authors KNEW they were writing and contributing to "the story of the Iliad." The story existed in some form-- they knew of it and were either changing it or adding to it. Kind of like the story of La Llorona. My great grandmother told this verbal story to my grandmother. My grandmother told it to my mother, albeit making some changes, adding some embellishments, maybe removing some details. My mother then communicated the story to me, making changes as well. By definition, they KNEW what the others wrote.
b. The Bible is different. When the individual books were being written, the "Bible" wasn't even in existence. The Authors at the time they wrote the individual texts, did not know of the other books. Granted, the folks who wrote the NT, and maybe some of the authors that wrote some of the OT texts, might have been aware of some of the OT writings, but they weren't "expanding" on those stories, per se.
1. How would you define a "piece of literature"?
2. You walk into any library or home office and you might find a bookshelf. Let's just say on the bookshelf are 73 pieces of literature No wait, let's make it easy. Let's say there are only 5 pieces of literature:
MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
Huxley's "Brave New World"
Collection of Aesop's Fables
The Works of Poet Robert Frost
Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Would you view these collectively as "a piece of literature?" If no, why not?
2. Does the fact a person (or group of people) decided to put these books together in a collection make them 1 piece of literature? And does that mean they need to be considered as one unit?
3. Do you think it's smart to do the following:
a. Criticize the collection because you might find inconsistencies among within them? I mean seriously, Aesop's Fables have talking animals for crying out loud.
b. Read each individual piece exactly the same manner (i.e. literally, figuratively, etc)?
c. Discard the ideas contained in any given book in the collection simply because it might conflict or be inconsistent with one of the other books?
Keep in mind, I'm not saying your particular Moral System (evaluating based on impact to society and if it produces results you agree with or like) is good or bad, just simply commenting that it's inconsistent.
I truly do believe you when you say your moral system is 100% consistent for you. Yep. I have no doubt that you use this moral system consistently. I believe when you say it's consistent for you. But someone else using that same moral system (Impact on society and results you agree with) might draw a different moral conclusion than you for the exact same action (we see this every day all around us). A moral system that gives different results when used is not consistent in my book.
So then, it comes back to my earlier points.
A. You say the Bible is inconsistent.
B. That is the foundation for discarding it (per the Debate description)
C, You have another Moral System that you use. However, this other moral system is likewise inconsistent. So you've basically swapped one inconsistent Moral System (the Bible) for another (Societal Impact and Results you like).
D. So "inconsistency" is not the real reason for discarding the Bible, for if "inconsistency" was the real reason, you wouldn't be using the Moral System you use now, which is also inconsistent.
E. The real reason for discarding the Bible is you feel it is a less consistent Moral System, compared what you use now.
F. SO then this becomes a numbers game (how many inconsistencies does the Bible have compared to your Moral System) as well as a severity game (how HUGE are the inconsistencies in the Bible vs the inconsistencies in your Moral System).
a. Severity is very subjective. What you may deem "huge", someone else may not
Technically speaking, for the debate, I'm not so sure I have to prove your Moral System is inconsistent because (a) the debate is about whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency at the foundation of your argument), not whether or not your current moral system in use is consistent, and (b) you've kinda already done that for me :).
1. Your foundational argument for discarding the Bible is that it's inconsistent and doesn't give consistent outcomes you like. From your description: "consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like."
2. When pressed for your definition of consistency, you seem to struggle
a. First you say no Moral System is 100% consistent. And then you go on to explain that a Moral system that is not 100% consistent can still be called "consistent" based on the number of inconsistencies (Majority) or the severity of the inconsistencies (HUGE inconsistencies, as you put it).
b. Then you say a Moral System can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person. This means that the moral system is either (a) not consistent, because if it's dependent on the person it's going to change from person to person to person or (b) it's purely subjective.
3. You then make the bold claim that your moral system is 100% consistent, meaning it never fails (if it fails, just once, then it's not 100% consistent). Not sure how you can defend that. A Moral system that is built on a subjective idea of "what is good for society and produces results I agree with" is going to vary person to person to person for the exact same situation.
Not sure how you can say your moral system is 100% consistent in and of itself. You say your moral system is based on impact to society and provides results you like. I then gave a generic situation/hypothetical (not even using a real-world example) of how Society might deem something as Good and enact a law for something, but you happen to disagree with it. In that situation, you would be disagreeing with Society (the law)...You agreed that yes, you would stand firm with your belief and actually followed it up with a real-world possible scenario of gun control (gun rights). NOw, one might counter "But I believe gun rights are beneficial to society, so in reality my moral still holds up. I'm measuring it against the benefit of society and it has results i agree with it" But the guy down the street might disagree. He may be actualizing saying "I think gun rights are bad, unlike you. But I too am measuring the impact against society and it has results I like." So now you have two different people using the exact same moral system (Impact to society and does it give results they like) but yielding two very different results.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your definitions and descriptions of moral systems and "consistent". First you say no Moral system is 100% consistent. Then you say Moral Systems can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person.
** Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person. **
If a moral system is considered "Consistent", shouldn't it be the same person to person to person. If a Moral system works one way for Joe, and another way for Jane, and then another another way for Juan, and then another way for Jethro, to me that doesn't sound like consistency.
So are you saying then a moral system is "subjective"? I know that's not the subject of the debate-- it's whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency as the foundation for your argument). But it's begging this question.
Mary and Joseph had sex and Jesus was conceived as a result? really? What are you basing this off of? What writings or teachings? You realize this is a Theological bombshell that has the potential to crush close to 2000 years of Christianity?
First, you're confusing my use of the term "move" when it comes to "change"—you’re equating it to physical moving. Don't confuse the two. When I'm using the term "moving" I'm not talking changing locations, i'm talking/referencing to a change in state.
Second, if you're omni-present, there is no need to change locations. You're already at that location....but you're also at your current location. and the other location etc. I know it's hard to understand. But imagine it like this. A simple, albeit imperfect analogy: if you were Omni-present, you could be in Phoenix Arizona, Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and L.A. all at the same time. But humans are imperfect and are bound by the laws of physics. A human being isn’t omnipresent. So someone like say, Steve Miller, has to take a Big Ol’ Jet Airliner and go from Phoenix Arizona all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A. So God is not “stuck”. God has no “need” to move around.
Third, actually yes—“unmovable” is actually another attribute of God’s Nature (he’s Omni-Present, remember?). If you move point A to point X, that implies that you were not in Point X, which goes against the idea of “omnipresent.
Fourth, no offense, but I’m putting my money on God in your hypothetical pickup game with the Almighty. I haven’t seen you play, but God, being all-power could certainly win if he wanted to, and lose if he wanted to.
This is all so very hard to understand, I know. But trying to understand God and his ways is very challenging. It’s sort of like a 6 year old learning basic Math trying to understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
** So you want to defend the old testament as well? **
Wait a minute. Is the debate about defending the Bible or is it about defending Christianity? Your title and first sentence is about arguing whether or not Christianity is a good moral system, and you go on to state that it's based on the NT.
Defending Christianity and defending the OT (Bible) are two different things....very similar, but still different. Which is it?
** I mainly use it because it is easier for me to find people who use it."
I can certainly see that. But In my opinion the KJV is not the authoritative "Bible". The Canon of the Bible was developed some 1600-1700 years ago, and has been in use by the Catholic Church since then. Then, in the 1600's the KJV came about, pretty much the product of the Reformation.
Perhaps you can clarify then, what exactly do you mean by "blood son"? How did you define it in your thesis?
To me "blood son" has a very specific connotation a blood relative, a biological relative. I have intercourse with my wife, and she conceives, a bears a son. This son is my blood relative, my blood son. However, I can also adopt a child that has different biological parents. I can raise this child as my own and call him my son. I don't think though this would be called my "blood son".
So i'm curious, what do you mean by "blood son", and how exactly does Matthew prove Jesus is the "blood son of Joseph". I'm very familiar with the story, so no need to recite the lineage.
Also, I"m curious as to where it says in order to be the Messiah he had to be the "blood son" of Joseph (or blood relative of Abraham).
2. ** if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.**
a. So it comes down to numbers—the number of times it works? “Majority” refers to quantity, specifically, technically speaking, majority means anything greater than 50%.
b. But what if the one time it doesn’t work, it’s a huge one—consistent or not consistent? I mean, you did say after all “finding one exception doesn’t make or break the entire system unless it’s a huge one.” So what your saying is one HUGE exception could break the system (i.e. make it inconsistent?). So something could, by your definitions work the majority of the time, but have one HUGE inconsistency and still be considered inconsistent?
On the one hand you imply it’s related to the number of scenarios (if it works the majority of the time, it’s consistent)
On the other hand you imply it’s not necessarily quantity, but severity (HUGE inconsistencies).
Or is that you are saying it’s both? It can be either the QUANTITY of inconsistencies or the SEVERITY of inconsistencies, or both, that determine whether or not it’s consistent?
i. If It’s QUANTITY, then what is the magic number? I’m assuming by “Majority of the time” you mean anything greater than 50% of the time.
ii. If it’s SEVERITY, how is that defined or determined, and by whom?
1. ** I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.””
a. I take issue with how you define “consistent”—you really shouldn’t use the word within its definition. You wouldn’t define “high quality” by saying “something that has high quality”. Nonetheless, I think I can work with it.
b. Veganism - Not sure I agree with this. If one eats meat, can one still call oneself a “vegan”? Not sure how that works lol. I guess your point is it depends on the number of times one eats meat? If the “permissible # of circumstances” are small, I guess you are saying you could still be vegan.
c. ** Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.** What do you mean by a “huge one”? Within the moral system, who or what defines what is “huge”?
Also, "Christianity" is a broad umbrella that covers many sects/denominations. Which one(s) are you looking to prove as "bad".....one in particular, a couple or all of them? There are significant differences between the denominations (their history, their beliefs, etc).
I really don't want to be defending my faith (denomination) while at the same time your using what another faith/denomination believes to debunk mine...make sense?
I'm not willing to accept the debate as it's written, here is why:
- Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
- I refuse to use the KJV. Here's why: The King James version, when looked at from the history of Christianity, is a relatively new version-- having first been published in the early's 1600's, some 1570 years or so after Christ's death and roughly 1100 years after the canon of the Bible was first incorporated. The KJV is basically a product of the Protestant Reformation
The OT must be used and I prefer we use the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE):
While the prevoius 2 concerns are why I wont' accept, I do have additional questions (these additional questions are not preventing me from accepting, they are just questions I have):
1. Do you think the Bible, in particular, the New Testament, represents the sum total of everything Jesus said, did and taught? Or do you think that there were some things that he said, did, or taught that were not written down in the NT? And if so, do you think it's possible that these unwritten sayings, actions, teachings could have very well survived and been handed down through the generations?
2. Is there particular sect/denomination of Christianity you are interested in covering in this debate. The various sects have different believes and practices. Or are you planning on proving that ALL denominations are bad?
I'm not willing to accept the debate as it's written, here is why:
- Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
- I refuse to use the KJV. Here's why: The King James version, when looked at from the history of Christianity, is a relatively new version-- having first been published in the early's 1600's, some 1570 years or so after Christ's death and roughly 1100 years after the canon of the Bible was first incorporated. The KJV is basically a product of the Protestant Reformation
Those are the big two issues preventing me from accepting the debate outright (more to come in next comment)
Just saw your vote and comments. Appreciate the feedback. Based on what you wrote in "Reason" on the vote tab, I don't think you understood what the debate was about. You state "This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways". No-- that's not what the disagreement (debate) was about. It wasn't about whether or not Christians define God as "Omnipotent". They (we) do, and I thought that was made apparent in the description when I wrote "what it means to be omnipotent from a Theological/Christian perspective". I would think this implies that the Christian does think God is omnipotent, so what then becomes up for discussion is "what does it mean to be omnipotent, which is what the debate was about. "
Anyway, not looking to change votes or anything (not even sure if that's possible here), just wanted to highlight that what you put in your reason to me seems inaccurate. Again, thanks for reading all this stuff and voting nonetheless!
Let the record show I've been blocked by RationalMadman.
A plea to RationalMadman:
Hey now. Didn't mean to offend. I really do want to know how you would define a person. SOrry about the sarcasm. i'll refrain.
I'm serious though, I don't care what Merriam Webster says about "person", or "personhood" or "conscious". I want to know what YOU think. It's actually very important and relevant to the discussion, because how a "person" is defined will determine what is a "person" and thus determine whether or not it's worthy to allow to live or not. Whether or not something should be allowed to live is a very serious decision, a weighty one and must not be taken lightly.
The title of the debate doesn't explain WHY you think race is to blame (trust me I've read the title multiple times).
So in your opinion, the common thread to all this was that their skin was white, and that this commonality was the reason they did it?
Another common thread was that they all had dark hair. I don't know about you, but this is very telling. I think we should be wary of dark haired folks and perhaps label brunettes as "domestic terrorists".
Great, thanks for the clarification. So your definition now becomes this:
"A person, in my version of English and morality, is a conscious being that is beneficial to the society as a whole."
Again, just so I'm clear-- what exactly do you mean by this new word you added ,"conscious?". I can google or consult my good friend Merriam-Webster on what "conscious" means, but we also know you may not agree to generally accepted definition of terms. So what does "conscious" mean to you?
** If you google abortion rates and look at the charts for it, as birth control use has been going up, abortion rates have been falling. It is because of birth control that I predict that abortions will no longer have to be used by 2030.**
Guess we’ll see how it goes, won’t we? Let’s hope Debateart is still around in 11 years, but just in case I’m screenshotting this thread ;-). Seriously though, birth control has been around for a long time…a VERY LONG TIME. Unfortunately, so has abortion. You’d think with birth control being so ubiquitous, it’d be non-existent by now—that it would be something archaic, a thing of the past, something we would just be telling our grandkids about around the fireplace….”I remember back in the day, we had the phonograph, we read the news on paper, and we also had to end life in the womb! You young whippersnappers have it too easy these days—with your Spotify…your streaming news….your birth control!” But no…not the case.
** It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. **
Does there have to be a sense of responsibility? One night of sex shouldn't correspond to 18 years of responsibility. Granted, killing the kid after 6 weeks ought to be banned. But preventing a kid from being conceived; seems alright. The women are cool with having sex generally provided they don't get pregnant. If the woman consents and she doesn't get pregnant or transmit any STDs, then I would let people have sex and it doesn't oppress women. Granted, I would require birth control to be used that is 100% effective to prevent pregnancies.
Like I said, it’s a subject for another debate ;-). There doesn’t have to be a sense of responsibility—the real question is, should there be? We can remove (or try to remove) consequences (responsibilities) all we want from actions. But then, when we do that—what are the consequences of doing that?
**An uninterrupted sperm cell will form a zygote if in a woman. Does this mean that we should ban things that prevent sperm from reaching eggs? If you say yes, it would ban birth control, but it would also ban abstinence since that also prevents sperm from reaching an egg.**
Sorry—you can’t make that leap. You are making the mistake of equating a sperm cell with a an already formed member of the human species (zygote). A sperm cell, as it is, is not a member of the human species-- needs certain things to happen in order for it to become a member of the human species. A zygote on the other hand is already a member of the human species, it’s already on the “human species” life continuum.
** We have separation of church and state. I don't know too much about stem cell research to have an opinion on it.**
Yep I totally agree—we do have separation of Church and State. And at no point did I state I hold this position as a “religious belief”. I’m not saying “Stem Cell Research should be banned because the Church says so!”. I don’t believe we should intentionally kill innocent toddlers so we can study their brains. Why not? Because I believe the human toddler is a stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. Likewise, I don’t believe we should kill zygotes, embryos, fetuses so we can harvest their Stem Cells? Why not? Because I believe the zygote (embryo, fetus) is stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. It’s not a “religious belief” per se-- but the Church happens to agree with me on it ;-)
Thanks for your answer. I"m a comic book fan myself, but I happen to think Marvel is better than D.C. so I'm a little disappointed you chose "Superman" as your analogy, but that's a debate for another time ;-). But I digress. Can I ask a few more questions, and some of these questions might be related to your analogy because it will help me understand your position and thought process.
1. Do you acknowledge or agree that the individual books of the Bible, both the OT and NT, were written by different people, in different styles, in different cultures, at different times in human history, for different audiences, and they consist of different types of literature? I think most scholars and theologians would agree to this, so I'm curious what your take is on this.
2. Because #1 above, would agree that it's important to those things into consideration when reading the books, i.e. what type of literature is it (historical book, a letter, a poem, etc), what was culture it was written in (norms, etc)? If no, I"d like to understand why you would say no.
3. The inconsistency you gave in your analogy ("Superman's birthplace") is a good one. Superman is a recurring character-- Book A is related to him, Book B, all the way through Book Z. So it is reasonable to expect that something related to this character from Book A be consistent with the same Character in Book Z. I'd be curious to see your take on which inconsistencies are comparable to this "Superman's birth".
These are all the questions I have for now. But more will come. Keep in mind, I'm not disputing that there are "inconsistencies" or (apparent) "contradictions"-- the question really becomes, ok...what does this mean?
** A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. **.
Great, now we are getting somewhere! Personally speaking, I think words and definitions are very important. And I am very truly interested in understanding your viewpoint. In order to do so though I have to ask questions to make sure I'm on the same page as you. I don't want to presume to know what you think or believe.
I'll submit to you that most Philosophers, Theologians etc would define "being" or "a being" as "anything that has existence." So given that, a car, a computer, a cell phone, bacterium, Lebron James, a glass of Merlot, the Stanley Cup, a Martin 12-String, oxygen, CO2, Bubonic Plague are all "beings" from a philosophical standpoint-- they all have existence.
Given your definition then of "person", any one of these things could potentially be called a person: They are all "beings" (they all have existence), therefore whether or not they are "persons" would hinge on whether or not it's beneficial to society as a whole. Again, this is your definition, not mine. So, Oxygen is a "being" (it has existence), and Oxygen benefits society as a whole (without it people and thus Society would cease to exist...the science is pretty solid on that one), so it follows from your definition "Oxygen" could be considered a "person". Do you agree? If not, then why not?
Would you care to modify, clarify, or expand upon your social construct, er, definition of "person?"
I'm against birth control. I'm sure this will trigger all sorts of questions ("Ok, but birth control does this this and that"), debates, etc. But that is my belief (Granted I used to be vehemently pro-choice and pro-birth control etc. I've since changed my views).
I believe that Birth Control, rather then "reduce abortions or pregnancies", does the opposite. I believe it fosters a belief or culture of "anything goes" when it comes to sex. It devalues the sexual relationship and reduces the act to one that is simply for pleasure. It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. . It denigrates women and makes it easier for men to use women as sexual objects. It helps foster a culture of promiscuity.
** Cancer DNA is also human DNA. Are cancer cells human beings?**
Nope. THere is something uniquely different about a zygote (embryo)-- when uninterrupted a zygote will continue to develop along the human life continuum. Cancer cells aren't even on that continuum. So from that perspective, a cancer is really analogous to a hair from your cell, fingernail, or fecal matter-- while it may contain the human DNA, it is not a human being.
** What's the difference between stem cells and other cells that don't specialize? They both reproduce like crazy.**
It's not "how the cells are used" or "what the cells can do" that forms the basis for being "opposed to stem cell research." Again, what most institutions, at least the Catholic Church anyway, opposes is what is done to get certain stem cells -- the embryo (human life) is destroyed. If there was a way to use embryonic stem cells in such a way that it doesn't harm or destroy that embryo (human life), I and the Church would be all for it.
**The clone does not have unique DNA. If uniqueness of DNA is the sole criteria for person hood, then this clone wouldn't be a human. If this clone isn't a human, then neither are real life non clones. **
I don't think you could make this claim. First, I don't think anyone said it's the "uniqueness" of the DNA that determines it's human. What makes it human is the fact that has human DNA, it just so happens to be unique.
How would you determine if something is harmful to another person? Are you talking just physical harm?
Quick question for everyone, do you think it's wrong to "use people" for your own pleasure or gratification?
It's a simple "yes / no" question.
curious...why the name change?
I'm game. If you make the debate though, the only thing I ask is that you make the argument time longer than just a few days....
That's a great question that many people don't realize or understand. In short, the KJV is a relatively "new" creation, borne out of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible
1. The canon of the Bible came into existence around the 3rd or 4th century and it had 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)
2. This Bible was in use for over 1000 years until the "Protestant Reformation"
3. As a result of the reformation, 7 books from the OT were removed and this "new version" of the Bible began to be used by Protestant demoninations. The KJV is what is often referred to as a "Protestant" Bible, and is "missing" 7 books that are contained in the "Catholic Bible".
The NABRE version has the approval of the Holy See (Catholic Church) for use and retains the 7 books that the Protestant Bible does not contain (which explains many of the disparities between Catholics and Protestants).
So, on the surface KJV may look similar to the NABRE version, but in reality the KJV is lacking 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch)
How and why the books were removed is subject to very lengthy debate as well....
Hey I'm sorry for posting Bible Version in the comments and not directly messaging you. It wasn't until after I posted the comment that I realized you specified to DM you. My bad.
done
If I were to accept this debate, I would insist on the following:
1. Use of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) found at www.usscb.org/bible. THe KJV is lacking in several key books of the OT. And since the early Christians only used the OT, it's important which version you use.
2. Must also use the Old Testament, and not just the New Testament. "Christianity" is about a person, namely "Jesus Christ" and following Him (which you properly defined), and not about "book". The first Christians practiced Christianity-- they were followers of Christ. The NT wasn't even written at that time-- the only Scriptures the early Christians had to follow was the OT.
Is the KJV the authority on Christianity? Why or why not?
Why would you opt to use that Bible version?
Also, can you please provide a definition for what you mean by "objective reality" ?
I'm game. But you never really participated in my debate on the whole "Omnipotence" argument.
Can we use the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm
The KJV is a relatively new invention. Whereas the NABRE has the approval of the Holy See and is true to the version the Holy See has been using for some 1600 years or so.
I'm game. But is that really the debate you are wanting to have -- that the Bible is "inconsistent", or is it really that the Bible should be discarded because of it's inconsistency? I think the deeper questions are:
1. What is the inconsistency?
2. WHY is there an inconsistency?
- for the first passage, what was the intent/context of that passage?
- for the subsequent passages, what was (were) the intent/contexts of those passages?
3. What is the real teaching behind those passages?
4. Is the "inconsistency" have an implication for the overall teaching behind those passages?
Those are just my 2 cents...
Looking forward to this debate. In particular, I'm looking forward to learning what "magically happens" at birth or any other point in time other than conception that deems the life worthy of protection.
I would've asked him to clarify what he means by "women" when states "Put simply, I don’t hate women. This causes me to be in favor of their continued rights."
All women or just certain women? "Woman" technically is an adult female. So is he implying there are some females he does hate, and thus would be in favor of eliminating their rights? This is a huge question with huge implications.
- if you love X (i.e. don't X), then it follows the very first thing would be to allow X to continue to exist (live). After all, how could you say you love "X" but want it to not live (continue existing).
It also follows that if you love (don't hate) X, you would want those things that develop into X to continue to do so.
For starters, Ragnar's link makes no mention of Proof that Jesus is Joseph's blood son. I read Genesis 12:1-3, here's what it states inthe link:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed"
Not sure how you can make the leap and say that this proves the Messiah would be a blood relative of Abraham and thus Jesus is the blood son of Joseph.
Alright, let the record show I"ve been blocked by Ragnar. Guess I need to tone down the sarcasm. He provided a comment on a debate I was having,a comment which goes against what my faith and Christianity teach. So naturally, rather than be silent, I'm going to challenge that comment.
I do not believe (a) that Jesus was the "blood son" of Joseph, nor do I believe Matthew "proves" Jesus was the blood son of Joseph. Perhaps you took offense to my sarcasm (theological bombshell), if so, i apologize.
Matthew states lineage and nowhere does it state or imply that (a) Mary and JOseph had sex or (b) Jesus is the biological (blood son) of Joseph.
Matthew specifies the lineage of multiple generations from Abraham to "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah."
Not sure how you can make leap to say this proves He was the blood son of Joseph.
I can trace my brother's genealogy likewise:
From my great-great-great grandfather down to Robert (my dad) the father of Michael (my brother), the husband of Melissa. Of her was born Ian.
Can you definitively say "Ian" is the blood son of Michael? Yes? No?
For those itching to know, Ian was adopted and is not blood related to Michael. Michael still calls Ian "my son" and Ian calls Michael "my Father", but there is no blood relationship.
I've been now blocked by RationalMadman and Ragnar, both of whom made comments which go against my faith or what it teaches. When I challenged them on
it, they seem to take offense.
** 2. I would not consider that bookshelf to be one piece of literature, because that is simply the collection of books one person happens to own. Now, if someone were to publish a book consisting of those 5 works, then I would consider that to be one single piece of literature. To answer your third question as well (which you accidentally also called the second question), if someone were to publish a collection of books under a single title, then that book would be considered a single piece of literature, even though the other works are separate books in their own right. One more key distinguishing feature of a collective book (book with multiple books in it) is that it the different books in a collective are very often bound together by commonalities (subject matter, characters, author, etc.). In the case of the "master" comic that commonality is Superman, in the Iliad it is the Trojan War, and in the Bible, it is God. **
Your last point is a great point. A few more questions:
1. Who has the authority to say "why" the books were gathered (collected) the way they were? The person/people reading it or the person/people who actually put the collection together? Yes, we all have an opinion or say, but who would be correct?
2. DO you think it matters who put the collection together and why when you analyzing that collection (that piece of literature)?
** 3b. Each section of a piece of literature should be interpreted in its own way. However, if a statement made in one text directly contradicts another made in an earlier text, then it is considered internally inconsistent, regardless of whether that piece of text is literal or figurative.
3c. Whether or not a certain piece of text should be discredited entirely due to inconsistencies depends on the severity and frequency of the inconsistencies. This particular point is beyond the scope of this debate, but we can discuss this further in a separate debate and/or in the PMs if you wish. **
I think I tend to agree with you on this, at least on the surface. I guess then what it would boil down to is "what is the significance and/or impact of inconsistency?" In order to answer that question, I think it's only proper to consider who wrote it, when, the intent, context, etc.
Alright, I know your focused on the debate at hand, but I will offer some comments.
1. The Jury is still out on whether or not the Iliad was written by one person or multiple people over the course of time. But for the sake of argument, we can stick with the assumption it was written by multiple authors over time.
a. With the Iliad, it would be safe to assume that the authors KNEW they were writing and contributing to "the story of the Iliad." The story existed in some form-- they knew of it and were either changing it or adding to it. Kind of like the story of La Llorona. My great grandmother told this verbal story to my grandmother. My grandmother told it to my mother, albeit making some changes, adding some embellishments, maybe removing some details. My mother then communicated the story to me, making changes as well. By definition, they KNEW what the others wrote.
b. The Bible is different. When the individual books were being written, the "Bible" wasn't even in existence. The Authors at the time they wrote the individual texts, did not know of the other books. Granted, the folks who wrote the NT, and maybe some of the authors that wrote some of the OT texts, might have been aware of some of the OT writings, but they weren't "expanding" on those stories, per se.
If you are referrring to the blueletterbible link you provided, I did.
I could not find anywhere where it says that Jesus was the blood son (biological) of Joseph.
oh yea, lots of questions.
1. How would you define a "piece of literature"?
2. You walk into any library or home office and you might find a bookshelf. Let's just say on the bookshelf are 73 pieces of literature No wait, let's make it easy. Let's say there are only 5 pieces of literature:
MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
Huxley's "Brave New World"
Collection of Aesop's Fables
The Works of Poet Robert Frost
Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Would you view these collectively as "a piece of literature?" If no, why not?
2. Does the fact a person (or group of people) decided to put these books together in a collection make them 1 piece of literature? And does that mean they need to be considered as one unit?
3. Do you think it's smart to do the following:
a. Criticize the collection because you might find inconsistencies among within them? I mean seriously, Aesop's Fables have talking animals for crying out loud.
b. Read each individual piece exactly the same manner (i.e. literally, figuratively, etc)?
c. Discard the ideas contained in any given book in the collection simply because it might conflict or be inconsistent with one of the other books?
Keep in mind, I'm not saying your particular Moral System (evaluating based on impact to society and if it produces results you agree with or like) is good or bad, just simply commenting that it's inconsistent.
I truly do believe you when you say your moral system is 100% consistent for you. Yep. I have no doubt that you use this moral system consistently. I believe when you say it's consistent for you. But someone else using that same moral system (Impact on society and results you agree with) might draw a different moral conclusion than you for the exact same action (we see this every day all around us). A moral system that gives different results when used is not consistent in my book.
So then, it comes back to my earlier points.
A. You say the Bible is inconsistent.
B. That is the foundation for discarding it (per the Debate description)
C, You have another Moral System that you use. However, this other moral system is likewise inconsistent. So you've basically swapped one inconsistent Moral System (the Bible) for another (Societal Impact and Results you like).
D. So "inconsistency" is not the real reason for discarding the Bible, for if "inconsistency" was the real reason, you wouldn't be using the Moral System you use now, which is also inconsistent.
E. The real reason for discarding the Bible is you feel it is a less consistent Moral System, compared what you use now.
F. SO then this becomes a numbers game (how many inconsistencies does the Bible have compared to your Moral System) as well as a severity game (how HUGE are the inconsistencies in the Bible vs the inconsistencies in your Moral System).
a. Severity is very subjective. What you may deem "huge", someone else may not
Technically speaking, for the debate, I'm not so sure I have to prove your Moral System is inconsistent because (a) the debate is about whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency at the foundation of your argument), not whether or not your current moral system in use is consistent, and (b) you've kinda already done that for me :).
1. Your foundational argument for discarding the Bible is that it's inconsistent and doesn't give consistent outcomes you like. From your description: "consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like."
2. When pressed for your definition of consistency, you seem to struggle
a. First you say no Moral System is 100% consistent. And then you go on to explain that a Moral system that is not 100% consistent can still be called "consistent" based on the number of inconsistencies (Majority) or the severity of the inconsistencies (HUGE inconsistencies, as you put it).
b. Then you say a Moral System can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person. This means that the moral system is either (a) not consistent, because if it's dependent on the person it's going to change from person to person to person or (b) it's purely subjective.
3. You then make the bold claim that your moral system is 100% consistent, meaning it never fails (if it fails, just once, then it's not 100% consistent). Not sure how you can defend that. A Moral system that is built on a subjective idea of "what is good for society and produces results I agree with" is going to vary person to person to person for the exact same situation.
Not sure how you can say your moral system is 100% consistent in and of itself. You say your moral system is based on impact to society and provides results you like. I then gave a generic situation/hypothetical (not even using a real-world example) of how Society might deem something as Good and enact a law for something, but you happen to disagree with it. In that situation, you would be disagreeing with Society (the law)...You agreed that yes, you would stand firm with your belief and actually followed it up with a real-world possible scenario of gun control (gun rights). NOw, one might counter "But I believe gun rights are beneficial to society, so in reality my moral still holds up. I'm measuring it against the benefit of society and it has results i agree with it" But the guy down the street might disagree. He may be actualizing saying "I think gun rights are bad, unlike you. But I too am measuring the impact against society and it has results I like." So now you have two different people using the exact same moral system (Impact to society and does it give results they like) but yielding two very different results.
Doesn't sound very consistent to me.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your definitions and descriptions of moral systems and "consistent". First you say no Moral system is 100% consistent. Then you say Moral Systems can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person.
** Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person. **
If a moral system is considered "Consistent", shouldn't it be the same person to person to person. If a Moral system works one way for Joe, and another way for Jane, and then another another way for Juan, and then another way for Jethro, to me that doesn't sound like consistency.
So are you saying then a moral system is "subjective"? I know that's not the subject of the debate-- it's whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency as the foundation for your argument). But it's begging this question.
Mary and Joseph had sex and Jesus was conceived as a result? really? What are you basing this off of? What writings or teachings? You realize this is a Theological bombshell that has the potential to crush close to 2000 years of Christianity?
Seriously-- what texts / resources did you use?
First, you're confusing my use of the term "move" when it comes to "change"—you’re equating it to physical moving. Don't confuse the two. When I'm using the term "moving" I'm not talking changing locations, i'm talking/referencing to a change in state.
Second, if you're omni-present, there is no need to change locations. You're already at that location....but you're also at your current location. and the other location etc. I know it's hard to understand. But imagine it like this. A simple, albeit imperfect analogy: if you were Omni-present, you could be in Phoenix Arizona, Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and L.A. all at the same time. But humans are imperfect and are bound by the laws of physics. A human being isn’t omnipresent. So someone like say, Steve Miller, has to take a Big Ol’ Jet Airliner and go from Phoenix Arizona all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A. So God is not “stuck”. God has no “need” to move around.
Third, actually yes—“unmovable” is actually another attribute of God’s Nature (he’s Omni-Present, remember?). If you move point A to point X, that implies that you were not in Point X, which goes against the idea of “omnipresent.
Fourth, no offense, but I’m putting my money on God in your hypothetical pickup game with the Almighty. I haven’t seen you play, but God, being all-power could certainly win if he wanted to, and lose if he wanted to.
This is all so very hard to understand, I know. But trying to understand God and his ways is very challenging. It’s sort of like a 6 year old learning basic Math trying to understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
alright. Looks like SpeedRace took it. Bummer. Oh well. Maybe next time lol. No worries-- my usual normal self will be chiming in on this one though.
** So you want to defend the old testament as well? **
Wait a minute. Is the debate about defending the Bible or is it about defending Christianity? Your title and first sentence is about arguing whether or not Christianity is a good moral system, and you go on to state that it's based on the NT.
Defending Christianity and defending the OT (Bible) are two different things....very similar, but still different. Which is it?
** I mainly use it because it is easier for me to find people who use it."
I can certainly see that. But In my opinion the KJV is not the authoritative "Bible". The Canon of the Bible was developed some 1600-1700 years ago, and has been in use by the Catholic Church since then. Then, in the 1600's the KJV came about, pretty much the product of the Reformation.
Perhaps you can clarify then, what exactly do you mean by "blood son"? How did you define it in your thesis?
To me "blood son" has a very specific connotation a blood relative, a biological relative. I have intercourse with my wife, and she conceives, a bears a son. This son is my blood relative, my blood son. However, I can also adopt a child that has different biological parents. I can raise this child as my own and call him my son. I don't think though this would be called my "blood son".
So i'm curious, what do you mean by "blood son", and how exactly does Matthew prove Jesus is the "blood son of Joseph". I'm very familiar with the story, so no need to recite the lineage.
Also, I"m curious as to where it says in order to be the Messiah he had to be the "blood son" of Joseph (or blood relative of Abraham).
2. ** if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.**
a. So it comes down to numbers—the number of times it works? “Majority” refers to quantity, specifically, technically speaking, majority means anything greater than 50%.
b. But what if the one time it doesn’t work, it’s a huge one—consistent or not consistent? I mean, you did say after all “finding one exception doesn’t make or break the entire system unless it’s a huge one.” So what your saying is one HUGE exception could break the system (i.e. make it inconsistent?). So something could, by your definitions work the majority of the time, but have one HUGE inconsistency and still be considered inconsistent?
On the one hand you imply it’s related to the number of scenarios (if it works the majority of the time, it’s consistent)
On the other hand you imply it’s not necessarily quantity, but severity (HUGE inconsistencies).
Or is that you are saying it’s both? It can be either the QUANTITY of inconsistencies or the SEVERITY of inconsistencies, or both, that determine whether or not it’s consistent?
i. If It’s QUANTITY, then what is the magic number? I’m assuming by “Majority of the time” you mean anything greater than 50% of the time.
ii. If it’s SEVERITY, how is that defined or determined, and by whom?
1. ** I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.””
a. I take issue with how you define “consistent”—you really shouldn’t use the word within its definition. You wouldn’t define “high quality” by saying “something that has high quality”. Nonetheless, I think I can work with it.
b. Veganism - Not sure I agree with this. If one eats meat, can one still call oneself a “vegan”? Not sure how that works lol. I guess your point is it depends on the number of times one eats meat? If the “permissible # of circumstances” are small, I guess you are saying you could still be vegan.
c. ** Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.** What do you mean by a “huge one”? Within the moral system, who or what defines what is “huge”?
Ok. NOw i'm really curious. "Christ being Joseph's son by blood". Explain that to me. How is Christ Joseph's son by blood?"
Also, "Christianity" is a broad umbrella that covers many sects/denominations. Which one(s) are you looking to prove as "bad".....one in particular, a couple or all of them? There are significant differences between the denominations (their history, their beliefs, etc).
I really don't want to be defending my faith (denomination) while at the same time your using what another faith/denomination believes to debunk mine...make sense?
I'm not willing to accept the debate as it's written, here is why:
- Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
- I refuse to use the KJV. Here's why: The King James version, when looked at from the history of Christianity, is a relatively new version-- having first been published in the early's 1600's, some 1570 years or so after Christ's death and roughly 1100 years after the canon of the Bible was first incorporated. The KJV is basically a product of the Protestant Reformation
The OT must be used and I prefer we use the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE):
http://www.usccb.org/bible/index.cfm
** I think my actual burden of proof would be to show that attributing personhood at conception is a bad thing and would do active harm.**
This oughtta be interesteing. Would love to debate that with you
While the prevoius 2 concerns are why I wont' accept, I do have additional questions (these additional questions are not preventing me from accepting, they are just questions I have):
1. Do you think the Bible, in particular, the New Testament, represents the sum total of everything Jesus said, did and taught? Or do you think that there were some things that he said, did, or taught that were not written down in the NT? And if so, do you think it's possible that these unwritten sayings, actions, teachings could have very well survived and been handed down through the generations?
2. Is there particular sect/denomination of Christianity you are interested in covering in this debate. The various sects have different believes and practices. Or are you planning on proving that ALL denominations are bad?
I'm not willing to accept the debate as it's written, here is why:
- Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
- I refuse to use the KJV. Here's why: The King James version, when looked at from the history of Christianity, is a relatively new version-- having first been published in the early's 1600's, some 1570 years or so after Christ's death and roughly 1100 years after the canon of the Bible was first incorporated. The KJV is basically a product of the Protestant Reformation
Those are the big two issues preventing me from accepting the debate outright (more to come in next comment)
Just saw your vote and comments. Appreciate the feedback. Based on what you wrote in "Reason" on the vote tab, I don't think you understood what the debate was about. You state "This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways". No-- that's not what the disagreement (debate) was about. It wasn't about whether or not Christians define God as "Omnipotent". They (we) do, and I thought that was made apparent in the description when I wrote "what it means to be omnipotent from a Theological/Christian perspective". I would think this implies that the Christian does think God is omnipotent, so what then becomes up for discussion is "what does it mean to be omnipotent, which is what the debate was about. "
Anyway, not looking to change votes or anything (not even sure if that's possible here), just wanted to highlight that what you put in your reason to me seems inaccurate. Again, thanks for reading all this stuff and voting nonetheless!
Looks like TheAtheist forfeited the remaining rounds. Next time I'll make the argument times longer.
Are you interested in debating this?
Let the record show I've been blocked by RationalMadman.
A plea to RationalMadman:
Hey now. Didn't mean to offend. I really do want to know how you would define a person. SOrry about the sarcasm. i'll refrain.
I'm serious though, I don't care what Merriam Webster says about "person", or "personhood" or "conscious". I want to know what YOU think. It's actually very important and relevant to the discussion, because how a "person" is defined will determine what is a "person" and thus determine whether or not it's worthy to allow to live or not. Whether or not something should be allowed to live is a very serious decision, a weighty one and must not be taken lightly.
The title of the debate doesn't explain WHY you think race is to blame (trust me I've read the title multiple times).
So in your opinion, the common thread to all this was that their skin was white, and that this commonality was the reason they did it?
Another common thread was that they all had dark hair. I don't know about you, but this is very telling. I think we should be wary of dark haired folks and perhaps label brunettes as "domestic terrorists".
Great, thanks for the clarification. So your definition now becomes this:
"A person, in my version of English and morality, is a conscious being that is beneficial to the society as a whole."
Again, just so I'm clear-- what exactly do you mean by this new word you added ,"conscious?". I can google or consult my good friend Merriam-Webster on what "conscious" means, but we also know you may not agree to generally accepted definition of terms. So what does "conscious" mean to you?
** If you google abortion rates and look at the charts for it, as birth control use has been going up, abortion rates have been falling. It is because of birth control that I predict that abortions will no longer have to be used by 2030.**
Guess we’ll see how it goes, won’t we? Let’s hope Debateart is still around in 11 years, but just in case I’m screenshotting this thread ;-). Seriously though, birth control has been around for a long time…a VERY LONG TIME. Unfortunately, so has abortion. You’d think with birth control being so ubiquitous, it’d be non-existent by now—that it would be something archaic, a thing of the past, something we would just be telling our grandkids about around the fireplace….”I remember back in the day, we had the phonograph, we read the news on paper, and we also had to end life in the womb! You young whippersnappers have it too easy these days—with your Spotify…your streaming news….your birth control!” But no…not the case.
** It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. **
Does there have to be a sense of responsibility? One night of sex shouldn't correspond to 18 years of responsibility. Granted, killing the kid after 6 weeks ought to be banned. But preventing a kid from being conceived; seems alright. The women are cool with having sex generally provided they don't get pregnant. If the woman consents and she doesn't get pregnant or transmit any STDs, then I would let people have sex and it doesn't oppress women. Granted, I would require birth control to be used that is 100% effective to prevent pregnancies.
Like I said, it’s a subject for another debate ;-). There doesn’t have to be a sense of responsibility—the real question is, should there be? We can remove (or try to remove) consequences (responsibilities) all we want from actions. But then, when we do that—what are the consequences of doing that?
**An uninterrupted sperm cell will form a zygote if in a woman. Does this mean that we should ban things that prevent sperm from reaching eggs? If you say yes, it would ban birth control, but it would also ban abstinence since that also prevents sperm from reaching an egg.**
Sorry—you can’t make that leap. You are making the mistake of equating a sperm cell with a an already formed member of the human species (zygote). A sperm cell, as it is, is not a member of the human species-- needs certain things to happen in order for it to become a member of the human species. A zygote on the other hand is already a member of the human species, it’s already on the “human species” life continuum.
** We have separation of church and state. I don't know too much about stem cell research to have an opinion on it.**
Yep I totally agree—we do have separation of Church and State. And at no point did I state I hold this position as a “religious belief”. I’m not saying “Stem Cell Research should be banned because the Church says so!”. I don’t believe we should intentionally kill innocent toddlers so we can study their brains. Why not? Because I believe the human toddler is a stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. Likewise, I don’t believe we should kill zygotes, embryos, fetuses so we can harvest their Stem Cells? Why not? Because I believe the zygote (embryo, fetus) is stage of human life on the human life continuum (the science is pretty solid on that) and thus it’s worthy of protection. It’s not a “religious belief” per se-- but the Church happens to agree with me on it ;-)
Thanks for your answer. I"m a comic book fan myself, but I happen to think Marvel is better than D.C. so I'm a little disappointed you chose "Superman" as your analogy, but that's a debate for another time ;-). But I digress. Can I ask a few more questions, and some of these questions might be related to your analogy because it will help me understand your position and thought process.
1. Do you acknowledge or agree that the individual books of the Bible, both the OT and NT, were written by different people, in different styles, in different cultures, at different times in human history, for different audiences, and they consist of different types of literature? I think most scholars and theologians would agree to this, so I'm curious what your take is on this.
2. Because #1 above, would agree that it's important to those things into consideration when reading the books, i.e. what type of literature is it (historical book, a letter, a poem, etc), what was culture it was written in (norms, etc)? If no, I"d like to understand why you would say no.
3. The inconsistency you gave in your analogy ("Superman's birthplace") is a good one. Superman is a recurring character-- Book A is related to him, Book B, all the way through Book Z. So it is reasonable to expect that something related to this character from Book A be consistent with the same Character in Book Z. I'd be curious to see your take on which inconsistencies are comparable to this "Superman's birth".
These are all the questions I have for now. But more will come. Keep in mind, I'm not disputing that there are "inconsistencies" or (apparent) "contradictions"-- the question really becomes, ok...what does this mean?
** A person, in my version of English and morality, is a being that is beneficial to the society as a whole. **.
Great, now we are getting somewhere! Personally speaking, I think words and definitions are very important. And I am very truly interested in understanding your viewpoint. In order to do so though I have to ask questions to make sure I'm on the same page as you. I don't want to presume to know what you think or believe.
I'll submit to you that most Philosophers, Theologians etc would define "being" or "a being" as "anything that has existence." So given that, a car, a computer, a cell phone, bacterium, Lebron James, a glass of Merlot, the Stanley Cup, a Martin 12-String, oxygen, CO2, Bubonic Plague are all "beings" from a philosophical standpoint-- they all have existence.
Given your definition then of "person", any one of these things could potentially be called a person: They are all "beings" (they all have existence), therefore whether or not they are "persons" would hinge on whether or not it's beneficial to society as a whole. Again, this is your definition, not mine. So, Oxygen is a "being" (it has existence), and Oxygen benefits society as a whole (without it people and thus Society would cease to exist...the science is pretty solid on that one), so it follows from your definition "Oxygen" could be considered a "person". Do you agree? If not, then why not?
Would you care to modify, clarify, or expand upon your social construct, er, definition of "person?"
I'm against birth control. I'm sure this will trigger all sorts of questions ("Ok, but birth control does this this and that"), debates, etc. But that is my belief (Granted I used to be vehemently pro-choice and pro-birth control etc. I've since changed my views).
I believe that Birth Control, rather then "reduce abortions or pregnancies", does the opposite. I believe it fosters a belief or culture of "anything goes" when it comes to sex. It devalues the sexual relationship and reduces the act to one that is simply for pleasure. It removes a sense of "responsibility" when it comes to sex. . It denigrates women and makes it easier for men to use women as sexual objects. It helps foster a culture of promiscuity.
** Cancer DNA is also human DNA. Are cancer cells human beings?**
Nope. THere is something uniquely different about a zygote (embryo)-- when uninterrupted a zygote will continue to develop along the human life continuum. Cancer cells aren't even on that continuum. So from that perspective, a cancer is really analogous to a hair from your cell, fingernail, or fecal matter-- while it may contain the human DNA, it is not a human being.
** What's the difference between stem cells and other cells that don't specialize? They both reproduce like crazy.**
It's not "how the cells are used" or "what the cells can do" that forms the basis for being "opposed to stem cell research." Again, what most institutions, at least the Catholic Church anyway, opposes is what is done to get certain stem cells -- the embryo (human life) is destroyed. If there was a way to use embryonic stem cells in such a way that it doesn't harm or destroy that embryo (human life), I and the Church would be all for it.
**The clone does not have unique DNA. If uniqueness of DNA is the sole criteria for person hood, then this clone wouldn't be a human. If this clone isn't a human, then neither are real life non clones. **
I don't think you could make this claim. First, I don't think anyone said it's the "uniqueness" of the DNA that determines it's human. What makes it human is the fact that has human DNA, it just so happens to be unique.