PGA2.0

That in no way makes it right in its judgments. Are you an authority on the Bible since you have read it so many times? 

Only the author of a book is an authority on that book.

Why is your mind necessary in determining whether it is true? 

Because the mind is what perceives evidence and proof, and interprets the truth it reveals.

Why is your belief true to what is? 

Belief has nothing to do with what truly is.

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 

The Christian bible is literally the only supposed account of the Christian god. Therefore it is the only thing that can be an authority on it.

So, will you accept that as evidence of his existence? Is it a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to believe other writers like early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others verify his existence by mentioning his works?

You're asking me if something is true simply because someone says it is? You aren't serious, are you? Of course not. How ridiculous a question.

Sure you can, or else nothing from ancient history can be known. Do you believe that nothing can be known? 

The only thing that can be known of ancient history is that someone somewhere wrote some text claiming to be factual accounts of historical events. Whether or not these accounts are factual cannot be verified, thus cannot be known.

Okay, sure. Do you need one of these five to believe something?

You need at least one of these five senses to know something a posteriori, therefore, since justifiable belief requires knowledge, the answer is: Yes. otherwise the belief is a delusion, even if the belief is true.

The Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith. 

That's like saying "evil is the greatest form of love." It makes absolutely no sense. A complete oxymoron. Faith, by its very definition, is completely unreasonable and illogical.

Which man? Are you speaking of Jesus?

Any man making any prediction that came true, including Jesus.

The Bible contains many predictive texts that were written before the fact. Do you dispute this? 

Nope.

So your theory would be okay if you could show me even one person that you know or know of that can do that. Can you?

Anyone could, so yes.

How do you stage the future?

Predict this football team will win the superbowl. Pay the quarterback to purposefully throw the game. That team wins. Suddenly they're a prophet who can predict the future(in the minds of very, very gullible people/idiots).

How well do you know Preterism?

About as well as I know any doctrine based on the Christian bible.

What we know that it is reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem, before the common era.

Even if that were reasonable, which it's not, it wouldn't matter in terms of proving divine prophecy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Tell me, why is it reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem?

PGA2.0

The difference between you and Him is that He is a Spirit alone.

Actually, according to Scripture, he's not "A" spirit. He IS spirit(John 4:24). He is also love(1 John 4:16), light(1 John 1:5), and a consuming fire(Hebrews 12:29).

You are material and it can be argued spiritual. There is a part of you that does not seem to conform to the natural world if materialism is all there is.

Is there? I've never noticed it.

By the way, are you an empiricist or do you believe in the immaterial also? 

It doesn't matter what I believe. I am unable to know that which I cannot empirically perceive/experience unless it can be known a priori, therefore any belief I have of that which can only be known a posteriori which I have not empirically perceived/experienced is delusion

In the pages of Scripture, there is a message, a revelation about/from a personal being claiming to be God. If this message is true, then we can know God in as much as He has revealed Himself. If the message is from God, then you would expect it to confirm what we know about reality through its words. Prophecy is one such confirmation.

As I've already explained, prophecy confirms nothing.

Another is the unity of the Bible and its central theme. The NT says it reveals Jesus Christ throughout the OT Scriptures. I can show the reasonableness of this on most pages of the OT. The OT Mosaic Covenant was a covenant with Israel. In Exodus 24:3 they agreed to the conditions of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28 gives the blessings of the covenant and the curses for disobeying the covenant. Every physical ordinance and the ritual requirements were a shadow or type of a more perfect reality, a spiritual one. We are told they all point to Jesus Christ, and this can be demonstrated. 

The fatal flaw in your belief here is that you are assuming that this bible of yours speaks factual  truth. You are assuming every word is absolutely true, and that everything it says happened, happened. Because of the fact that you are not 2000 years old, and have no time machine capable of traveling 2000 years back in time, this belief is unjustified, thus it is a delusion. In other words: No, it cannot be demonstrated. Not really. Only in your mind.

As I said, the Christian belief is reasonable and reasonably justifiable. Testing other beliefs I have never found one that works. When you dig down to the foundation, the core belief, it rests on nothing. Not so with the God of the Bible. 

The descriptions of God revealed in the pages of Scripture are also reasonable in describing what God would be like, the greatest necessary Being. The Creator would need to understand His creation and what He has made. He would have to transcend it, and therefore the physical reality, and that reality would have to have a beginning. If He is all knowing, just, and wise, then He would demonstrate this in the pages therein. These attributes are just a smattering of what is revealed about God. We also learn of His character, His holiness, purity, and power. 

The Christian god is a murderous, misogynistic asshole who rapes, pillages, commits mass genocide, pitches his own children into a "lake of fire and brimstone" for sins as menial as lack of faith... If this god does exist, I certainly don't want to know him.

What makes you think that your authority and judgments are more authoritative than its words? After all, you are basing your highest authority on a mere mortal, limited, finite mind - yours or someone else. Why is it the necessary mind in determining truth?

Because my mind is the only one I have, thus the only one relevant to me and what I believe.

May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter? 

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Authority on what matter? The Christian god?

Do you believe that Josephus existed, based on his written accounts or not?

I believe a book says he existed. Much like a book says Jesus existed, or the Christian god exists.

How would you confirm the existence of an ancient historical person?

You can't.

Do you have to see them to believe them?

Or smell them, taste them, touch them, or hear them. There are five empirical senses, not just one.

And can you get to know someone from their biography or things based on what has been written about them?

If said writings are verified to be true, then perhaps. It depends on how thorough said writings are.

I see your argument as mute unless you want to deny the reasonableness of history.

There is nothing reasonable or unreasonable about history. History is one thing, and the recording of it is another. The truth is often lost to time, as the scribe can write whatever they want. Who could ever verify the truth of the words written by men whom have been dead for 2000 years?

The biblical God does not go about trying to prove His existence to His creatures.

That much is painfully obvious, and quite ironic too, being that an omnipotent being could very easily prove such a thing.

You either take Him as the highest authority or you place some authority above His.

I place no authority on magical invisible pink unicorns.

He interacts with humanity by singling out a specific people, and they write about Him.

How do you know this?

Your theory would be alright if it was one or two or even a few predictions, but hundreds? Who do you know who can predict the future with certainty? 

Who said this man could predict the future? I certainly didn't. A man could give five hundred million accurate predictions, and simply be a man who staged five hundred million events to happen exactly when he said they would in the future. Only a fool believes that looks are never deceiving. If Preterists are really that gullible, then they have far more problems than the idea that they're delusional alone.

First, you would have to give good reasons that these authors wrote these manuscripts after the events in question. If you can't do that then you would have to show the predictions were inaccurate. Are your reasons good? 

Why would I need to do any of that, and why wold the predictions need to be inaccurate?

"As I said in the description of this debate, the Christian god can only be defined by the Christian bible. The sources used for my opponent's semantic argumentation hold no authority to define this god, thus the premise for their argument is entirely false."

1

==========

Mother/Satana/Jewish-God

Momma's Boy / Caring Son / Moses

==========

2

==========

Extremely Unruly, Cunning Son/Daughter/Jesus/Yeshua

==========

3

==========

Abusive Father / Allah

Obedient, brainwashed son/sibling of Allah who is also close to his estranged brother/sister, Jesus/Yeshua...  Muhammad

==========

Thusly we see this:

Mother with Moses (first of the trinity)

Jesus with his own ghost and aftermath (second of the trinity)

Allah with Muhammad (third of the trinity)

Then we ask, how did the father produce the children if he came after Moses and Jesus? Allah is merely a matured, more calculating, bitter Lucifer...

Who is Lucifer? Satan or Jesus? Think... Satan is not Lucifer. :)

Allah IS the holy ghost as it ages.

People say there is no evidence for the biblical God. Prophecy is one of many bucket loads full of reasons. What is more, it can be verified via history to a reasonable and logical extent. Thus, there is factual evidence for it. 

A man says "God told me this will happen in 100 years." 100 years later, said thing happens. This does not prove that the god this man claims told him this actually did tell him this, nor does it prove that this god even exists. It doesn't even prove that the man knew it was going to happen.

The only thing it proves, in fact, is that the man happened to be right. Be it by pure happenstance, foreknowledge, or a god, neither have been proven. This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to when I say that Christians have no concept of what constitutes evidence and/or proof.

You failed to answer all three questiions, you fail because you are a lying hypocrite and you don't have a mind, that's why you use the minds of the misogynist IPSS.

5) What value do you hold in human worth?

Translate the above into coherent.

When is the start of a new life after sex of a male and female human being?

Most of the time never, you don't know anything little one. Ask the IPSS they don't know either.

4) Is it right to kill human beings? No I am anti capital punishment and anti war, what about you?

It would seem that your answer is yes. You fucking hypocrite

I do until it gets pointless. Then I dismiss you as not worth debating with. As I said, your mind is made up and you can't see the irrationality of it.

You mean you run away because I reject your lies outright, your lies are useless against the truth that I tell. Your IPSS are fairy tale tellers and you are the fool that believes them. It's time for you to run away.

I believe in science, not scientism. You are the one creating a dichotomy here, not me. You don't see how a person can have faith and still believe in science. 

You don't believe in science at all, prove it. What is the origin of all the plants and all the creatures that have ever existed on this planet?

I'm currently already in two time constricted debates, so I'm going to have to pass on that. I don't have time for another debate right now. Plus, I'm honestly not interested in specifically debating the biblical relevance of Preterism. I find that belief system to be irrelevant to the reason I debate against Christianity and theism.

Okay, then the question is why should my instincts operation in the same way yours do?

Because we're both human.

If it is to my benefit to kill others so I will survive what of it? If Hitler had gained world domination and has survived, then whoever he deemed unfit would be eliminated and there would be nothing wrong with it. This begs the question of how you get from what is (descriptive) to an ought (what should be).  From what I witness those in power make the rules. If you live in North Korea you live by a different set of rules from those in the USA. Why is your moral instinct any "better" than that of Kim Jong-un? Because you like it? Well, too bad, he likes the opposite and for you to survive in his country you have to abide by what he decrees. The problem is that you have two different set of rules regarding the same thing (let's say abortion or capital punishment). Who in effect is 'right?' They both can't logically be for they state opposites. It goes against the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, and the Laws of Excluded Middles. In effect, it turns logic on its head.

Actions beget actions. That is factual reality. That's why killing for reasons other than an eminent threat is not morally just. If your life is immediately threatened, and killing is the only way to stop that threat from meeting reality, then killing is morally justified. If you kill indiscriminately, you invite others to do the same to you. Good begets good, evil begets evil, actions beget actions. These are basic logical principals, and basic human instincts for survival.

My moral instinct is no different from Kim Jong-un's. Kim is an evil prick who was raised in a morally skewed environment. His emotions were psychologically conditioned. His morality comes from these emotions, instead of reality. As I said previously, those who base their morality on conditioned emotions rather than reality are morally wrong. Kim has exactly the same instincts as I do. He simply ignores them when it comes to morality.

They have a lot of similarities but some glaring differences too. I side toward full Preterism. I don't see how you can make sense of Scripture with partial Preterism, or with futurism in any form. 

Then yes, I do understand where you stand, and no I do not agree that it is the biblical stance, nor do I specifically disagree.

It is just another one of your personal opinions 

 

No, it is a fact that Jesus didn’t say those words otherwise the gospel writers wouldn’t have had to tell us some 45 years after the fact what THEY believe Jesus “meant”., WOULD THEY  you clown?  What they would have done was write what Jesus ACTUALLY said, wouldn't they. They do anywhere else when Jesus himself say something,

I remind you; YOU introduced the verse to the thread. I have shown it not to be Jesus’ words but the words solely of the gospel writer and what he believes the words “meant”.

you build a straw man out of what was said by inserting your own bias into the passage and CHANGING its meaning. 

 

SEE ABOVE YOUR CLOWN. it wasn't me who posted they verse , it was you. I haven't even given a version of what I believe about the verse so how have  " changed it's meaning "?  is all we have is what the gospel writer believes it meant .

The disciple tells you what He was speaking of and what the Jews thought He was speaking of.

 

No it is the gospel writer and you who tells us: 21 “But He Was speaking of the temple of His body”; - and NOT Jesus. 

The gospel writer wasn’t present and no disciples were present. Go back and read YOUR POST 55 above. Better still, go back to YOUR post 55 and read carefully the WHOLE verse that YOU POSTED, you clown.

The sign Jesus Jesus is speaking of is the sign of His physical resurrection from the dead. 

 

So you keep saying.But your evidence for “what Jesus meant” doesn’t come from Jesus does it. It comes from the gospel writer and you simply believe the writer without question. 

You are trying to get around this by saying the this particular gospel writer JOHN, was a disciple of Jesus himself. Well I am sure if that is the case, then you have clear evidence prove it as fact. you see in truth no one knows who wrote these gospels. And we only have estimates for when they were actually written. 

The destruction of the physical temple is another matter. 

Even If I was to accept that, It has to be acknowledged that the Jerusalem Temple/ Solomon’s Temple, didn’t fall and it wasn’t raised after three days, either,  was it you clown. 

 

I won’t comment on the rest of your post as it is simply reproducing passages that prove nothing andis simply filibustering on your behalf as you have no real answer for your own comments.For some reason known only to you, you believe that these verses you keep reproducing somehow explain Jesus and his temple body being resurrected. THEYDON’T!!!

Prove they put words in His mouth. You can't.

 

 The gospel writer  telling  us “what Jesus meant” and Jesus himself NOT TELLING US HIMSELF “what he meant” is putting words into the mouth of Jesus, you clownSo, who knows better, them or you? Were you with Jesus? How do you KNOW they put words in His mouth? You ASSUME it. You assume it because you don't want the Bible to be true. You tear it apart not by what it says, but by what you add to it. You are not being honest with the text.

 

Did Jesus say “this is what I mean by “I will raise the temple”?  NO he didn’t, he didn’t say anything at all about “what he meant”.

 

You want to change it because you don't like it.

 

What have I changed?Nothing. You put up the verse, I have simply commented on the fact that Jesus Himself did not say those words.    JESUS DID NOT SAY  "THIS IS WHAT I MEAN",  did he?  The gospel writers wrote those words telling us WHAT THEY BELIEVE Jesus “meant” and some 45-60 years after the fact. They are not even eyewitness accounts.

The 500 is the number of forum posts; its 1 formal debate to 500 forum posts.

Oh - best of luck in the debate, but I'm rootin' for skeps.

I am a Preterist. Do you understand what kind of stand I take on eschatology and do you agree that it is the biblical stance (that it rings true to what is stated in the Bible)?

Not yet. You haven't revealed what type of Preterist you are. Partial, or full? They are two very different doctrines.

I also don't see how a person arrives at morality from relativism. If there is no absolute, unchanging, objective, universal basis for good (best - and you see where I am going with this line of thought) how can 'good' be anything but preferences, and what makes a personal preference good? It just makes 'good' what they like, and if they have the power to do so, then what you must live by. The problem is that it is not a logical system of thought since the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity (A = A; a dog is a dog; good is good), is lost. 'A' can mean whatever you want to make it mean, thus it becomes meaningless. 'A' loses its identity with relativism.

Relative morality only exists in those who base their morality on psychologically conditioned emotions, thus relativism in morality is false. All humans are born with the same primal instincts; Instincts like survival.

Most notions of morality are formed by these basic instincts for survival. It is the reason why murder is seen as wrong, and etc. I won't go into detail on that right now, as it's not needed to answer your question. The answer is: True morality is absolutely universal. It just doesn't need an eternal god to be so.

John 2:18-22

18 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

There is also another mention of the temple being destroyed that you seem keen to keep from the readers here. 

Here you go. And notice, no one mentions what Jesus “meant by this” on this occasion, did they?

Mark 13:1-2 (NIV)

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times

13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones!What magnificent buildings!”

2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not One stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”

 

So  Jesus here is talking not about “DEAD TEMPLE bodies” or Bodies being DEAD TEMPLES, is he? He is talking about a  stone buildings collapsing.

AND before you accuse me “ISOLATing  verses out of context” the following verses has Jesus now on the mount of olives and no one seems to be  too concerned  or bothered enough to ask Jesus about his previous statement .. only  “when will this happen”? Jesus then goes into his “many coming in my name and nation rising against nation” speech.

 

 Not a single mention here about his DEAD TEMPLE body,or him being DEAD TEMPLE, for three days or even one day or even a week or month. And there is  no one putting words into his mouth either , are they?

Yes, He did. [ say he would be dead]

 

John 2:18-22

18 The Jews then said to Him,“What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews Then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

 

 

 This goes absolutely nowhere in proving Jesus was talking about his “body temple”  being “DEAD”. The gospellers interpret what they believe he meant and not what Jesus himself actually said. PUTTING WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH IN OTHER WORDS!!  

And they did this because the real and actual Jerusalem Temple didn’t fall and was still standing after he was crucified; they had to cover his poor prophecy somehow, didn’t they.

To “destroy” doesn’t require total obliteration. It could in this case be to mean beat me to within an inch of my life until I am unconscious, but I will recover, I will survive:  Which he did: Because he wasn’t dead.

For a Christian, you seem like a rather intellectually honest individual. You may ask me whatever questions you like about what I believe and why. I may even agree to debate you on these forums, if you promise to admit defeat if you are defeated.

I believe certainty is impossible (other than in trivial cases such as tautologes and definitions),but I don't "bounce around on any wind of doctrine"!

Are you certain of that belief? What you did was create a self-refuting or self-contradictory statement. 

Are the only options faux-certainty or 'bouncing around'? is it as black and white as that? 

  

As a card carrying sceptic I do not claim certain knowlegde of any fact, but there is a spectrum of shades of certainty and uncertainty.   

My mistake - the leader board shows you with 0 debates; I guess it doesn't include ongoing debates.

So I expect you will go from 0:500 to 1:500 when you lose!

I note that PGA has not yet had a single formal debate on DA.  He has, however, made over 500 forum posts.

If you can't put a label on the truth you are a skeptic, bouncing around on the waves of disbelief and uncertainty and any wind of doctrine, never able to believe because of your ignorance and unbelief.

You suggest a false dichotomy of inflexible certainty and rootless disbelief.    i am a skeptic;

I believe certainty is impossible (other than in trivial cases such as tautologes and definitions),but I don't "bounce around on any wind of doctrine"!

If I am an exception to what you asserted then perhaps its not a very good assertion about anybody - so why make it?

I have had thousand post threads on DDO and never seen a resolution. The problem is that what drives a worldview gets in the way. The parties involved become dead to anything other than their viewpoint and they cannot be reasoned with. That is when challenging them to a formal became the only avenue to put up or shut up. They refused to do both. So I just walked away from the discussion and refused to engage the person again.

There can be many reasons why they didn't. I don't know the first thing of the proper structures for debates or the rules. Why would i do something where i'd just lose bc i didn't know the rules? One of my debates i lost bc i didn't have good spelling. Like i had the time to go back and edit all of my work... i don't have that kind of time.

Today and yesterday are rare days i can be on this site for a few hours. Than comes down to popularity of the person (which makes a difference in some cases) and semantics.

People win off semantics... you know? That isn't winning in my book. There are a lot of things that go into those formal debates that give you a win that has nothing to do with the arguments. But again... i'm not saying they are bad... you aren't getting it or keep dismissing it. It's not better than the forums. And yeah... some topics don't have a conclusion... but you can get a lot further along than you can with the formal. My contention is that Brutal made it seem like the formal debate function is the only way to debate your ideas and/or so much better that he didn't want to waste his time answering Etrnl's arguments... it's not, and that comes off as very self important, bottom line.  

You do not have the right to exercise your bodily autonomy over another human

The only human being involved is the woman and her right to bodily autonomy is the only question involved and you believe what your IPSS taught and that is that women are property. Just one of the reasons your religious beliefs are OBSCENE.

Not according to science.

Yes according to science. BTW as a creationist brainwashed godist you don't have any right to science.

Why would I believe you? 

You believe your IPSS and I know infinitely more than them.

What kind of credentials and authority do you have? 

More than you because I recognise reality and you don't. You use the "brains" of the IPSS because you aren't allowed to use yours.

Who are you in the grand scheme of things that you know better than science does?

I told you, you don't get to use science when your life is predicated on denying science.

What you do is you discriminate, dehumanize, degrade, and destroy the natural rights that every human being SHOULD have at the expense of the unborn. 

At least I'm not a disgusting cretin who wants desperately to deny women any rights, after all your IPSS tells you to. Women have a right to bodily autonomy regardless of what your misogynist IPSS have said.

Oh yeah, but don't squash the woman's right to kill!

I told you that you will just continue to lie, keep going. Godists are obsessed with killing, doesn't matter who just as long as they get to decide.

Women are entitled to bodily autonomy to an extent.

After all she is only property after all, property of man.

That extent ends when another human being is involved and the choice to give their consent to harm it in the worst way possible is made. 

You just don't listen to anyone but your IPSS, they don't count in reality.

You are myopic in your opinions to the point that no one can reason with you. 

No one can reason with your lies, a foetus is not a baby, but you keep lying about it.

You do not even accept the majority scientific opinion on what the unborn is. Tell me something - 

The majority medical opinion is that up to 24weeke a foetus is not human. But that won't stop you lying.

1) Is conception the start of life?No

2) At conception is there a new individual human being created? No

3) If it is not human then what is it?Group of cells

4) Is it right to kill human beings? No I am anti capital punishment and anti war, what about you?

5) What value do you hold in human worth?nonsensical word salad, try again. 

6) Should others be able to kill you like you propose killing the unborn?I don't propose killing anyone, what about you?

7) How likely are you to answer these questions? (Any bets, anyone?)How likely are you to answer mine?

I do the same in a thread, but people cannot be held to account as easlity as in a debate for what they believe.

They are held accountable in a different way. The entire community will come down on them if they aren't being logical. In any case, you are pointing out pro's to formal debates.

I never said there aren't any. I never said you don't have to know a bunch and research it. It's still debating none the less. But it is no better than the forums when you are having a conversation with someone that also knows his/her stuff, and isn't trolling. In that case, i believe it is even better than the formal debates for the main reason... you can get to a conclusion.

This doesn't mean you can't with formal debates. But, more often than not, given talking to the right person, that is more achievable on the forums since you aren't bound to just 5 rounds. Following certain debate structures... sometimes you only have 2 rounds to debate your idea. That is not enough to get to the conclusion of certain topics. On top of that, the substantive people on the forums aren't just some random dummies... they are well studied on the topics they are talking about. Plus, for me personally, i'm a paralegal... i don't need extra help in learning how to debate since i do it for work every freaking day. It's refreshing coming to the forums and shooting from the hip. That doesn't mean i am just spewing nonsense and speaking from ignorance. I have researched and debated the topics i am most passionate about many times over the years. I don't need to use a formal debate to get better. All i need is to debate people on the forums and continue to grow. 

Bottom line... both have their positives and both have their negatives (i would say debating with structure, by design, has more negatives than the latter imho anyways). But in any case, to make it sound like formal debates are the only intellectual way to address your issues and/or the best way to do it is simply false. 

"But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con."

I just read that back and now i'm sounding like i'm trying to say formal debates aren't good. That's not what i meant and i acknowledge there are good things in formal debates. My main beef with formal debates is that i find it to be a disservice to the audience in certain cases. By debating someone that says something like "Hitler didn't kill Jews," by debating this person you are basically saying it's a debatable subject. Your giving dumb statements or topics a level of respect that they don't deserve. That's always been my main beef with formal debates. Not that they're bad, just in certain cases why debate the opposite side and give it even an ounce of respect. This has to do with debating in general. Everything else about this site i said stands.

It can be used as a figure of speech for the unborn, just like a baby can. In fact, it is used in the Bible. I'll take God's word over yours any day.

You mean you will take the word of the IPSS, so what.

So why aren't you callecting these babies from the abortion clinics and raising them as your own babies, ever had children? Did you raise them from babies well heres your chance to raise thousands more or don't you know what babies are. A blastocyst is not a baby.

All women are entitled to bodily autonomy, regardless of what the IPSS have to say.

You do not have the right to exercise your bodily autonomy over another human

The only human being involved is the woman and her right to bodily autonomy is the only question involved and you believe what your IPSS taught and that is that women are property. Just one of the reasons your religious beliefs are OBSCENE.

That doesn't happen on this site. You are talking like the judges on this site are professionals, they're not. I for one am no professional when i decide to vote and i don't even think about half the stuff you said. I just vote for the person that i felt had the better arguments and/or if i found there is one argument that needed to be addressed in order for the whole thing to be true... and, i won't consider any of the other arguments if this argument isn't met. And i am decently intelligent, so my vote is sorta good ... but not anywhere near professional. There are people worse than me, way worse. Plus, everyone voting is in the forums. Like i already mentioned to Brutal... a formal debate that's not this site in real life... can be good. But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con.

Debating's like a sport, a hobby... It is not nearly the best way to get to the conclusions of an issue. Regular discourse with debate elements is the best... and that's what you find in the forums. Seriously how do you guys not get that? Your arguments that it's better are really making you guys seem like you're trying to make yourselves out to be more intellectual bc you formally debate. If you guys would say debating has it's own positives... like research and sources, i would agree there are elements to it that are good... but, you guys are making it out that if you don't debate formally ... you're stupid or lower than me. Give me a fucking break... it reeks of self importance.

Exactly. Finally, someone gets it. 

We also should control a woman when telling her she is not allowed to have an abortion because it infringes on the rights of the child.

There is no child involved, stop lying and address the topic. You are demanding that you have access to every woman's body as your right. Sorry but as you say a rapist doesn't have that right and neither do you.

There is no living human being in the woman's body either, so get the fuck out of her body.

The reasons are identical: 

Having and exercising power over another persons bodily autonomy.

This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.

This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.  

otherwise there is no accountability for you spewing forth these comments.

 Opinion again. I will take it you don’t want to discuss these threads and or defend them against my opinions and or theories.I don’t care. I have said anyone here can judge what I have to say right here in the open. 

Could the disciples simply have been wrong or mores the case duped into believing Jesus Was dead?  They had got it wrong on another occasion when they were convinced Paul was dead but wasn’t. Acts 14 

 

And there's not a mention of any of them being present at the crucifixion so how would they know either way. 

 

Why then,did Jesus die so quickly on the cross? 

Why did they spear his side if he was dead?

Did Jesus even predict that he would be dead for three days?

Yes even Pilate was amazed at how quick Jesus had “died”.  Mark 15:44

Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD. 

Again, no support for your claims. 

Who said that? 

What evidence do you have? 

Support

Evidence

More

...and for the record - this is not my claim, but the view of modern scholarship. If you want to reject that, then your debate is not with me.

As to your Deuteronomy defense, I don't find it compelling. "It shall besiege you in all your towns", but only Jerusalem was affected? That is not a match.

Because there is no accountability for what you are saying. 

 

 I can account for what I am saying. You just can’t seem to grasp the fact that my arguments are from the scriptures and my opinions are concerned with the scriptures. It is not me who has to account for anything. You either defend these scriptures against what I say about them or simply ignore me. That is your choice.

 

 Who are you reading? 

I am reading the scriptures. It is very rare I have to resort to outside sources to support my opinions and or theories. You see the bible is so flawed it is easy to find faults within them when looked at closely with a keen and sharp eye.

One does not develop a philosophy like this without being deeply influenced by others.

That is an opinion. I Am not “influenced” by anyone. The scriptures are full of faults and contradictions. They don’t stand up to close scrutiny. This is a fact.

You created the problem that can be reconciled when properly understood. 

 

Nope. That is a lie. The Problem with the Tree Of Knowledge of Good and Evil story is that it simply isn’t true as it is presented to us in the scriptures. It is presented as a fairy tale with talking snakes, life giving trees and flaming swords and a god who is all singing all dancing but who manages lose his creation among the bushes and trees  and has to shout out to his creation “ where are you” because he couldn’t find him

....

 

No, it does not. You Read into the Bible what you want it to say.

Again that is simply a lie. The bible is clear that there are more than one god and here are just a few of the examples so stop telling lies.

 In Genesis 1:26 we read, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'"(emphasis added). Genesis 3:22 adds, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil" (emphasis added).

Besides,   what had this particular god to be jealous about if he was the only god?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3

Your conclusions are the and. Pick One and we can have a formal debate over it. 

Here is short list of my threads.  You pick one and we can carry on from where it/they were left off. But I suggest you read all of the thread before posting as I won’t be repeating anything I have already said on the thread you choose.

 Let's see what others think of your truth claims.

  I have said. I am quite content to air my thoughts and opinions right here thank you. If you cannot cope with that, that's your problem, not mine. People here can see quite clearly what I have to say and they can add their opinions of “what they think” at any time they choose. They or you either rebut my claim and or opinion with evidence or simply don't engage. I don't care either way.

But let me remind you again. This is a - religion - forum , 

it is not a -  religious -  forum for the religious only.

Who the  _  _ _ _ is Francis Schaeffer and what difference does he make to the shape of an egg?

That's an entirely separate issue. I don't think that the identity of a reporter will ever be given to the person against whom the report was made. The mods would always be a third party in that relationship.

Also, reports aren't "accusations" other than to flag something on the site for the mods to review against the CoC. Your "defense" is resides in whether or not the comment or vote reported is against the rules are not. If you follow the rules of the site, then no amount of reporting should ever harm you (nor should you even be aware of it).

With respect to the mods knowing who makes reports, where do you stand?

That will be an issue. The reporter should be anonymous to non-mods unless the reporter wishes to come out publicly. Do you agree that to mods themselves, reporters should not be anonymous?

The latter is the only debate at hand.

"The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that's the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically -- with mathematical certainty -- brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country -- in society -- and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view
, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.
We must understand something very thoroughly. If society -- if the state gives the rights, it can take them away -- they're not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights -- this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have -- even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.
The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.
Occasionally, some of you who have gone to universities have been taught that these freedoms are rooted in the Greek city-states. That is not the truth. All you have to do is read Plato's Republic and you understand that the Greek city-states never had any concept of the freedoms that we have. Go back into history. The freedoms which we have (the form / freedom balance of government) are unique in history and they are also unique in the world at this day."

philosophy like this without being deeply influenced by others.

Atheism has no such need. Your fantasy world on the other hand is desperately in need of being influenced by others ie indoctrination.

Reality stands on it's own. God belief is contingent on indoctrination.

"Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as

overpermissiveness , pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things...

I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view -- that the final reality is an infinite creator God -- over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.
The word Humanism should be carefully defined....It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.
So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.
But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary -- merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.
Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country. It's the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law. They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.

Those IN POWER thrive while massive chunks of their populations suffer in many societies. That is the problem unless there is an objective measure - who determines thriving (those who survive by eliminating the opposition?). You, as a nihilist and secularist, do not have an objective standard or measure. Why should I believe what you are pedaling?  

North Korea demonstrates that there is no 'cosmic' or 'abstract force of/for good'.   NK is as it is because kim wants it that way and he posesses power that you and I - who would like things otherwise - do not; thus it is kim's will - not yours - that obtains.

Why don't you make some of these formal debate challenges?

 I am quite content debating and discussing my opinions right here in the open. Why should that bother you .

You keep making all these outlandish claims in thread after thread. 

I.e., Jesus Wasn't Dead When They Took Him Down From The Cross

Yes and?  I have not seen nor read anything to prove otherwise.

The problem with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

There are as I have shown.

One God? It is simply Not True

It isn't true is it. the bible makes that undeniably clear.

Lazarus. The "raising".

Yes, and? Lazerus wasn't dead either and you cannot prove otherwise. I have shown it to be a symbolic ritualistic "raising" to a higher status and you don't like that .

Why was the NT Zacharias "struck dumb"?

Yes and?